Again for clarity, what we are saying is a 1 IP character with Riposte and Finishing Move manuevers can declare a Full Defense as his 1 IP, wait till he has to parry a melee attack and then use Risposte and Finishing Move to take his next 2 available IP. He will then be unable to do anything for the next 2 Combat Turns.

So the argument that it breaks the concept of Combat Turns still applies even if you only allow one use of each interrupt action in a given Combat Turn. Based on that, I don't really see it as an argument to prevent multiple uses of Riposte in a single Combat Turn.

Given you can move during Full Defense (or as a Free Action generally), you don't even have to just stand still during your 'downtime'. And if you get into further trouble, you can just interrupt a Full Defense combo each Combat Turn and keep doing that every Combat Turn until you either get out of trouble or defeat all the threats.

Well, by that logic, a player certainly could not borrow actions from an Initiative that has yet to be rolled. I'd also think that some with 4 passes, could legitimately interrupt four times (even if they were all in IP 1), but then is done...

That makes a lot more sense if you limit it to the current set of IPs...that is seeming to me to be the intention...

Which then means Full Defense actions can't be borrowed from future Initiatives that have yet to be rolled. I'm going to have to make sure I use this in my game...

Which means a particularly fast 1 IP character will likely have to hold action in order to be prepared to either attack at the end, or Full Defense. Else he cannot Full defense after he has already used his action.

Maybe that is the way it should work. I dunno.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the RAW that prohibits an interrupt (and particularly a Full Defense interrupt) from taking a action from your next Combat Turn as your next 'available' action. It would actually make less sense to me to limit interrupts to a single Combat Turn, as it implies that someone can beat you on initiative and you can still interrupt, but if you beat them on initiative and attack, you can then no longer interrupt to defend from their attack.

I am comfortable that the RAW does not restrict the use of manuevers, and the only houserule I would make would be to prevent the looping of Finishing Move (which I think is common sense and should be covered by errata).

For my purposes I'm defining next action as the next pass I would act in, whether it is borrowed already, or even during the next combat turn.

Question on Full Defense, since Full Defense covers a span of time instead of instantaneous moment how does it work?

On my turn I declare Full Defense, it's quite obvious this will last until whenever my next action will be.
I act normally on my turn, then interrupt with a Full Defense Action. Does this last until:
A) My next action, which I will not be able to act during since I've used it.
B) The action after my next action.

Option A is what I'm leaning towards, you would have to interrupt with another Full Defense (and thus postpone your action even further) to remain in Full Defense. Option B, would effectively give you 2 actions for the price of one, since it would last for 2 action phases. The other item of note, when that next action comes, even though I can't act during it (due to borrowing), my defense pool would reset, no more negatives.

I think the intention of next available action was: Your next action, as long as you haven't previously borrowed it. If you have already borrowed the next action, then it is in fact not available and cannot be borrowed.

So I'd view the turn of events as this:
I borrow an action to do Full Defense...
Unable to perform Riposte's (or Finishing Moves for that matter)
During my turn I'm unable to act due to borrowing, but my defense pool removes negatives, and I'm no longer on Full Defenese...
I interrupt for a Riposte...
Unable to perform Full Defense (or Finishing Moves)
During my turn I'm unable to act due to borrowing, but my defense pool removes negatives...

There is nothing in the RAW which indicates you can only take a single Interrupt action per IP, per Combat Turn, per anything...

I can't believe the intention was to put a number of Manuevers into the game and then prevent you from using more than one in a given Combat Turn, in fact Arsenal seems to suggest that you use multiple Manuevers together.

I reiterate - I don't really see this as a gamebreaker, even when stretched to ludicrous levels.

Me either. I do think that I will rule that any use of 'Finishing Move' will count as the final link of any chain involved though, no matter what.

I would put some limitation on multiple set-ups as well.

Even though each individual attack deals no damage, the final attack can be devistating.

With multiple finishing moves, as soon as you miss, you're done, and your dice pool isn't getting any bigger (although your opponents defense pool is getting smaller) - so, depending on the character, this ranges from likely to improbable.

With a bunch of set-ups you get both. Your opponent's defense pool is shrinking, and your attack pool is growing, so its getting easier to keep the combo going. When you finally get to the finishing move, you could have a dicepool that is very very large, and almost certainly going to kill someone.

I pretty much figured that was a given.

Every time I think about it I imagine a devil-may-cry game, where he tosses every enemy into the air with his attacks, and holds them aloft with bullets, swords, or punches until he blows them apart and bathes in their sweet-sweet essence.

Yeah, looking over RAW again, I'd say this is all kinda FUBAR.

Looking at Page 151, we find Interception, which is allowing melee attacks within one meter (when an opponent is moving) for a Free Action. Obviously, you have to have a Free Action available, in that IP, to make use of it (as it doesn't say anything about next available action).

But then we come back to Full Defense (same page), and we see the "next available action" clause:

—he can instead declare a full defense when attacked,
even if it is not yet his Action Phase in the turn. Going on full
defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the character’s next
available action.

This seems to point out that for Full Defense, don't have to declare it at the beginning of the IP (because you may not even be attacked). So, you can wait, and if at any point, you are attacked, and want to use it, you can choose to do it immediately. Obviously, this is open to interpretation, but it seems that the next available action, is being limited to the combat turn. Meaning, you can't spend actions in a turn that hasn't started yet...

Yeah, not very strong support, but it makes sense to not be able to attack in the current IP, then turn around later in the IP and use your action from the next IP...

That means if you want to use these techniques...you should be holding your actions if you are going ahead of the opponents...

Sure. But it makes sure that fighters with multiple passes still hold an advantage over ones without.

Personally I think I would rule that you are only allowed to use 1 IP from the next turn. And besides the manuever "set up" one manuever can not activate another.

If a 1 IP dude attacks, and then gets attacked and uses riposte to parry and coutner attack, can not take any more interrupt actions. If he got attacked again he would be unable to declare full defense or another riposte.

I hate using Combat Turns as reference for when you can and can't use an ability. Combat turns are just a frame of reference to make gameplay run smoothly. There is no 3 second time blocks in the actual combat, so why would you rule this way? By saying 1 pass into the next combat turn we're saying 3 IP guy can use 3 Interrupts after the first pass, but if its the last pass, he would only be able to use 1. I can take all my actions (+1) in the first pass, or I can take 1 extra action in the last pass. Why can't he interrupt more than once right now, because the number of seconds on the clock is not divisible by 3...

If you want to say you can't have more interrupts then your number of passes thats different. That would allow you character to basically work 3 seconds ahead of anyone else. Granted this allows the split-second seizure where you take 5 actions in one pass (4 IP's), but this still allows you to do it at any point of time, not just on those magical time slots. Also you'll have to note that these "regenerate" as time passes, so after your next (inactive) pass, you'd have another interrupt available. So you could sit and cool for 4 IPs, and then spaz out, or you can use your interrupts as you see fit, and keep pushing an active pass further away, but it would never be more than 3 seconds in the future.

If you say you can only use 1 interrupt at a time, then you are only working 1 action ahead.

To put no limit on it, allows dodge master 1 IP, to Riposte to his hearts content against dual wielding 4 IP guy, and after just 2 combat turns (6 seconds) he's pulling actions from 48 seconds ahead. When does he actually have to pay this time back, I don't think it was meant to be the paralyzation at the end of combat.

I don't think these were ever meant to give a bonus to people without extra Initiative passes, or help them go against multiple IP opponents. This was made to be able to do a more reactive combat, rather than active. The benefit is you can borrow a pass and do something now, rather than actually having to wait for that next pass to act. It would allow you to Interrupt multiple IP guy, but if that interrupt isn't good enough to drop him, then you're still gonna get beat down as he gets his extra IP's, and you wait for another active turn to come by so that you can act again.

I think too much focus has gone onto the theoretical side of this, rather than the practical.

If 1 IP Parry Master (note Dodge or Gymnastics Dodge won't trigger Riposte) faces 4 IP Dual Wielder, under the normal RAW before Arsenal he is entitled to parry all of the attacks he is facing at a cumulative -1 to his DP per attack (So -7 to his DP by the end of the first Combat Turn). Unless he has a remarkable level of skill, the 4 IP guy is going to reduce his parry DP to nothing very quickly.

Along comes Arsenal and the Manuevers. Now 1 IP guy can get Riposte, and according to the wording of that Manuever is entitled to attempt a Melee Attack each time he successfully parries an attack. So now he has 9 'effective' IP during the above Combat Turn (his own 1 IP, plus 8 IP borrowed for each attack). If you throw in Finishing Move then that doubles.

Given the rapid reduction in defense DPs, and the relative lethality of melee combat, if they have not killed or incapacitated one another in the first Combat Turn I would be surprised. The idea that they could stretch this out to a point where the Parry Master is then standing around for 60 seconds is slim to none.

Now whether you consider the BP spent on accumulating a large parry DP, plus the 10 BP on Martial Arts (which comes out of your Qualities budget) and the 4 BP spent on Manuevers is justification for being able to match or dominate a melee opponent with significantly more IP is your call. Do remember that the Dual Wielder can also learn Riposte and Finishing Move and thereby level the playing field.

I personally do not think the rules as written are game breaking, but that may be because I like the idea of martial arts masters focusing their will into amazing feats and then collapsing with exhaustion.

Also a note on Manuever combinations - Throw requires Full Defense, so unless you rule that an 'interrupt' Full Defense is somehow mechanically different than a normal declared on your IP Full Defense, then performing a Throw manuever in response to an attack requires you to use 2 Interrupt actions in a single Combat Turn, even if you only have 1 IP (1 to trigger the Full Defense, then 1 to perform the Throw).

An Interrupt Full defense is mechanically different than a normal one, in that a normal one has not yet borrowed the next action. So yes they are already mechanically different.


Full Defense should work to trigger Riposte, since it is Reaction + Dodge + Melee Skill, it would still be a parry its just a stance more geared towards defensive focus. So Reaction (6) + Dodge (Melee) (5+2) + Unarmed (Parry) (5+2) = 20 dice on a Full defense parry? I don't know if Full Defense would allow you to stack specializations but multiple skills I would think would mean multiple specializations. Thats all natural, figure if the guys not going to get IP enhancements, he's not going to get anything. So against Dual Wielding 4 IP, he's rolling 13 dice at the end, I wouldn't rely on the cumulative -1 IP, unless your doing King of the Hill swarm fighting style (Jet Li at the end of The One).

Since these weren't answered before, I'll ask again plus another question, and options...

Defense cumulative pool resets:
A) My next action, whether I am able to act during it or not
B) My next action I am entitled to act during (In the case of interrupts)

On my turn I declare Full Defense, this will last until:
A) My next action, whether I am able to act during it or not
B) The next action I am entitled to act during (In the case of interrupts)

I act normally on my turn, then interrupt with a Full Defense Action. This will last until:
A) My next action, which I will not be able to act during since I've used it.
B) The next action I am entitled to act during (In the case multiple interrupts)
C) The action after my next action.

When you take the full defense action, you choose whether it is a full parry, full dodge, or gymnastic dodge.

In the most literal sense, only one of those is a parry (whether or not you're factoring in your weapon skill into your ability to dodge).

A Full Parry Defense is actually Reaction + Melee Combat Skill + Melee Combat Skill, no Dodge involved, although I suppose you could still argue that if you had a Melee Combat specialization in Parry, it should apply twice. So the best Parry Master would have 9 Reaction + 2 from Reakt + 12 Melee Combat + 12 Melee Combat = 35 DP. Once again this is an extreme case, as the BP or Karma costs to get to this level (and the requirement to be an Initiated adept to reach the skill and Reaction caps) means this level of DP is unlikely.

Whilst the RAW is not explicit on your other questions, my interpretation is as follows:

Defense DP modifiers reset on your next IP, even if you have 'borrowed' it with an interrupt. Similarly with Full Defense, the Complex Action lasts until the next IP, even if you did an interrupt. When you reach the next IP, in order to keep Full Defense going you would have to declare another interrupt and 'borrow' your next IP (so you will always be 1 IP behind yourself).

There are limits to the number of non interrupt actions you can do in a combat turn. Why not limit the number of interrupt actions to 4 per combat turn (the max number of initiative passes one can have)?

They can only do so much each combat turn this way. Yes they can still set it up to where they will not be reacting for 5 minutes because the next combat turn they do 4 interrupt actions as well, but this will also give the overwhelming odds a chance to happen. Then the person can go on full defense (1 interrupt action) and use the fun riptose (or whatever it is called) 3 times in that combat turn. At that point person number 4 attacking you does not get his arm broke when he swings at kung fu master. Kung fu master still gets his full defense to defend against everyone and some mook CAN attack without getting his arm broken.

Thoughts?

If you are of the opinion that there must be a limit to Manuevers, this seems like the most sensible. I still think unlimited Riposte-Finishing Move combos are not a game breaker except in very specific and highly unlikely scenarios, but if you don't like the idea of a trained fighter holding off and defeating several opponents in the same Combat Turn, limiting it to 4 interrupt actions does allow you to zerg them more effectively.

That ruling says someone with 4 IP's can act 8 times his first turn, and 4 times per turn afterwards, someone with 1 IP can act 5 times his first turn, and 4 times per turn after that. Who needs wired reflexes?

I'm of the opinion any way you rule it that will allow someone to pull actions from further and further away is not going to work properly. Limit to 4 per combat turn works well for someone with 4 IPs, he will be constantly pulling from no more than 3 seconds ahead. The person with 1 IP will continue to pull from 4 turns ahead, 8 turns ahead, 12 turns ahead etc... This isn't the way for a mundane to get more IP's, because it potentially allows you to have 4 IP's per turn, as long as your ok with standing around for 4 x the number of turns at the end. And at the end of combat it doesn't really matter anymore. It makes this ridiculously more powerful and cheaper than any other IP boost including the Improved Reflexes spell. The ability should remain limited in some form relative to the number of IPs the person has. So say you can only 1, or you can have # of IP's stacked at a time, or 2 x that if you want them to be 6 seconds ahead. It shouldn't just be a static number for all characters, it should be a static number for a single character.


These would work (remember once an action passes that you are inactive it frees up another):
You can have 1 borrowed action
You can have IP's number of borrowed actions
You can have 2 x IP's number of borrowed actions

These don't:
You can perform 4 borrowed actions per turn; doesn't because not everyone has the same number of passes per turn.
You can't use passes in the next turn; doesn't work because people with one IP can't do it.
You can only use up to the first IP in your next turn; puts too much weight on a turn which is nothing more than a grouping of Initiative Passes
You can only perform 1 of each interrupt per pass; you are borrowing an infinite number more passes than you are using.


Using arguments of "Eventually your DP depletes", or "Someone will step out of melee and shoot them" is a scenario fix. Eventually your edge depletes as well, but still Cain will argue up and down on Mr. Lucky (don't start it here please...) The thing is using circumstances to fix something isn't a way to fix the rules. Its like saying how do you stop a pronomancer, and the answer is shoot him in his right eye with a sniper rifle. Its irrelevent to the task at hand.

Seems like everyone wants a Kung Fu master, that can react fast without magic or cyber. I'd like that to, but this isn't the way, I'd recommend this:

20 BP Positive Quality: Heightened Reflexes - +1 Initiative Passes, this does stack with other forms of Initiative Pass increases (though never more than 4 passes per combat turn still applies)- Requires Reaction 4 or higher

This is based on Bioware takes 16 BP, Cyber takes 2 BP, Magician takes 18 BP, and Adept takes 15 BP to get to 2 Inititive passes. Since this is only costing BP's, and not essense or Adept Power Points, it is more expensive. But this would be a quality if you wanted someone without the other forms of more Initiative passes. Whether you allow them to take it more than once is something else entirely but it will at least get a Mundane to 2 IP's.

Not sure what you are debating with this - yes potentially the 1 IP guy could have as many attacks as the 4 IP guy, but in very specific circumstances i.e. provided the 4 IP guy attacks him every IP in melee combat and the 1 IP guy managed to parry every attack and hit with the Riposte. These manuevers in no way equate with actual increases to IP, which give you extra actions without any restriction or penalty. So don't go throwing away your Wired Reflexes just yet...

In all ways the 4 IP guy is in a better position than the 1 IP guy, even with these Manuevers. He is likely to gain initiative (as most IP boosters also boost Reaction), he gets to attack first and govern how many times he attacks, and he gets to perform other actions in the Combat Turn aside from just parrying or Riposting. He also gets to attempt to dodge, block or parry every Riposte the other guy throws at him, and if he chose to he could buy Riposte and Finishing Move himself and Riposte all the Ripostes. So he will always have 3 more effective attacks than the 1 IP guy, exactly as if neither had Riposte or Finishing Move. Hence no game breaker IMHO.

In short, this isn't a speed boost like Wired Reflexes, Synaptic Boosters or Improved Reflexes, it is just a way for a highly trained individual to gain more attacks under specific circumstances. It doesn't have any of the utility of proper IP boosts.

Consider the following sequence that we may be familiar with.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

What is the "next" thing in the sequence after "2"? Is it always this? Does it get used up, go away or consumed somehow? Is there a circumstance in which it is something different?

What's the "next available action" in a sequence of actions?

Does using action "3" for your "next available action" mean you can now skip to action "4" for the subsequent one?

Does depend on your definition - I would say that the "next" number after 2 is 3, but if 3 was removed the "next available" number after 2 would be 4.

It is the use of the word "available" that swings this for me regarding the intent of the Devs. If they had just said "next action" it would have been unclear if that meant you stopped at 3 (although it would have been harder to argue otherwise), if they had said "next pass" it would have been more concrete that you stopped at 3, but to use the word "available" implies they believe your next action or next pass may not be available and therefore you should move to the next "avaliable" one i.e. if 3 is not available, move to 4.

Given a choice, personally I choose interpretations that avoid end results that are disproportionate to other results.

I'm for the vote that next available action means, you can borrow your next action as long as it is available. Not borrow from wherever you might be able to act again.

If my character somehow was paralyzed or turned to goo... I could Full Dodge, by using my next available action (whenever the spell wore off) since the others aren't going to be available. As well I could be a Riposte master ballistic gel. It's ridiculous but that would be my next available action. I don't know if the wording on those spells make you effectively skip turns or what, but thats what the interpretation of next available you're going for.

Oh no, no, no - an interrupt action is still an action, and if you are incapable of taking actions you are incapable of taking interrupt actions to 'borrow' your next available action. So no Full Dodging whilst turned to goo...

You'd have a better chance arguing that you could do a normal parry, dodge or block as melee defense is explicitly not an action - however, we don't have lots of people on here arguing they can dodge melee attacks whilst gummi bear'd.

I think that for Martial arts to play the way Id like them to, some way of granting increased Interrupt actions needs to be made. I feel that the way the rules are currently written, you are limited to 4 interrupt melee actions (with Rating 3 Reflexes), with each one giving -1 cumulative DP. I do not think that this is enough actions to represent what a true master could do. This way, you are really limited to reacting to only 4 people, and any more is very hard to handle.

I haven't had time to work on it yet, but I think the interrupt actions could be split into two categories: full and half. A full interrupt action would take up an entire IP, while a half interrupt would only take up half, allowing for two interrupt actions/IP. Of course, this needs to be broken down into what is full and what is half. I may also be failing to take into account other things that would enable a master to handle a large group by himself.

Let me know what you think.

At the moment my interpretation of the rules as written (and no-one on this thread has convinced me otherwise so far) is that there are no limitiations on the number of interrupt actions you can take, and they don't incur DP penalties. Where are you reading this in the RAW?

Yes, if you interrupt for a Full Defense and then are attacked multiple times you lose -1 DP from your melee defense for each extra attack you have to defend against, but this is the same if you just do a normal melee defense, it has nothing to do with interrupt actions.

If you look back through this thread, you will see that per the RAW, and with the Riposte Manuever, it is entirely possible to attempt to parry or block as many attacks as you like in a Combat Turn and then immediately attack the person who attacked you, with the limitation being the reduction in your melee defense DP for each additional attack you had to parry or block after the first (so a true master could probably handle 10 - 15 opponents without too much trouble, provided they went Full Defense).

The RAW supports the way you would like Martial Arts to work, it doesn't prevent it...

Now what happens if you go into Full Parry and use the adept power Counterstrike? Would this be allowed on top of Finishing Move or Riposte?

Going by my previous interpretation, I think this would stack with Riposte, but not with Finishing Move (as by default, Finishing Move will not be your next melee attack roll, as it is only triggered by a melee attack roll, not a parry or block).

So the sequence of events would be:

Someone attacks adept who has Counterstrike 2, Riposte and Finishing Move
Adept successfully parries or blocks (lets say he gets 1 net hit)
Adept triggers Riposte and immediately attacks their attacker using their normal melee attack DP plus 3 (2 for Counterstrike, 1 for net hit)
If that attack is a successful hit, adept triggers Finishing Move using just their normal melee attack DP
Opponent collapses

All Counterstrike does is enhance the next attack, it doesn't say that next attack can't be an interrupt action. So I would say this is legal by RAW.

Thank You Samuel, I needed that. This was getting a little convoluted to follow.

This could be quite fun with Counterstrike, use it with setup and a finishing move. You should have enough net hits between the two to do a nice called shot either at -4 DP for +4 DV, or to negate armor.

Counterstrike... Setup -> Finishing Move (Called Shot)
(Parry)... (Action) -> (Borrowed Action)
cannot act for one action

I'm still strongly on the side of only one interrupt between actions, otherwise there's nothing but house rules preventing someone from Finishing Move someone to death, or turning a Finishing Move into a setup, to trigger another Finishing Move into a setup into inifinity... And your attack pool doesn't depelete for any of these (or in the case of setup it will be increasing). While your opponent is dropping at least 1 per attack, more once wound modifiers start adding up.
The end result is all I need to do is get in melee range and its dead, no matter what it is. If its the only thing on the field no biggie if I'm sitting still for 3 minutes afterwards. Otherwise after its dead, if someone passes within a meter of me without attacking I can intercept and kill them, otherwise if they attack me I can Riposte and kill them. And since an interrupt is only a complex action I'm not really frozen, I still have free actions to move just to close with my next victim.

And just to stop this from becoming the argument, one interrupt between actions is not a house rule, its a definition. Next Available Action means you can only borrow your next action if its available. Not only that but its the definition that makes the most sense. So half-a-dozen houserules or hope your players don't take advantage of your ruling, or a single definition (sadly not provided in any book otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation).

I will concur that the RAW do not seem to prevent Finishing Move triggering another Finishing Move, so stopping that is a common sense houserule I would use.

And the Parry > Counterstrike > Riposte > Set-Up > Finishing Move is not technically legal, as Set-Up is a Manuever used in place of a melee attack, it is not an actual melee attack (you just use your melee attack DP as the DP for the Set-Up Manuever). Riposte specifically says you may make an immediate melee attack, not that you can make an immediate action which replaces a melee attack.

So I can't see any way in the RAW of building up your attack DP over and over again.

I also still don't agree that the definition of the words 'next available action' is that this only applies to your 'next action'. If that was supposed to be the definition they would have just used the words 'next action'. The 'available' bit implies there are situations when your 'next action' is unavailable, and therefore you should continue forward to the 'next action' after that until you reach an action which is 'available'.

Frankly, any melee adept worth his salt is going to be chucking 14-18 dice in melee and have a damage code of between 10 and 13 Stun or Physical, so even a single Parry > Counterstrike > Riposte > Finishing Move is seriously going to ruin somebody's day unless they have incredible Full Defense or Damage Resistance.

Even a single net hit on each of the Riposte and Finishing Move attacks means having to soak 2 sets of 11 to 14 damage, which given an average Damage Resistance DP of 9 (3 Body, 6 Impact Armor) means whatever attacked you just took a minimum of 16 boxes of damage.

So given that level of skill already, having them be able to do that to multiple mooks in a single Combat Turn doesn't really strike me as an issue. Melee Combat in SR4 against a half decent combatant is deadly, which is why most people carry guns and avoid getting close to physical adepts...

I don't have the rules, I don't really care until sometime I'm playing SR4 and want to make a counter-attack master. Still, that's just plain completely wrong in the english language. "Next Available Action" means "the next action that is available", not "the next action, if available".

Yes, I know english can be incoherent, but your definition still does not fit.

The rules are incoherent. But my definition makes the most sense. As far as I'm aware SR has yet to create a Magical, or Technological, let alone Natural way to do time travel. So how can I borrow time from 5 minutes in the future to perform an action now? Interrupts are supposed to be the opposite of delayed actions, they are preemptive actions. You take an action now so that you can't act during your next action, vs I do nothing now, so I can act later. If a character can't delay multiple actions at a time how does it make sense for him to prempt multiple actions at a time?



Actions, passes and turns exist for a reason. You have 1 time slot to work with, whether it be 3 seconds (1 IP), 1.5 seconds (2 IP), 1 second (3 IP) or .75 seconds (4 IP). If you interrupt you do nothing for the rest of that time slot. If you act during your designated time you're good. If you delay you have until your next time slot comes up then it is forfeited.



I find it ridiculous that I'm alone on the side seeing how bizarre and game breaking the ruling of multiple interrupts is. And this all comes down to that little phrase "next available action" it was a terrible choice of words is all it is. If a developer gets on here and says that this was meant for people to live 5 minutes of their life in a 3 second time frame, then I don't know what I'll do. But until someone can explain how this makes sense besides "next available action" I'm absolutely confused. The character is not winded or stunned, that would be stun damage or fatigue damage, not borrowed actions. For the multiple interrupts to work then there is a very large FAQ and Erratta coming... Otherwise I forsee a single sentence in a FAQ clarifying the meaning of "next available action".

I'm done with this now, until something official or developer intent is posted.

The reason I think you seem to be the only person thinking that this is game breaking or unrealistic is that the examples you are using are at the extreme end of the scale. It is extremely unlikely that a single person is going to be attacked by more than 4 people in melee combat at one time, let alone by 4 people with 4 IPs who are dual wielding. It is also unlikely that the person being attacked only has 1 IP.

So assuming 2 IP and being attacked by 4 people (who each have 1 IP), we are talking about 'borrowing' only 4 - 8 actions (depending on whether Finishing Moves are required), which is a max of 4 Combat Turns or 12 seconds - not several minutes.

I appreciate you don't like the way that works, and obviously you can change that if you like. But I do agree on one thing - until a dev, errata or FAQ points out that they didn't actually mean 'next available action' as it would be commonly defined in English, I'm happy to let this thread lie.

I agree conceptually with Nightwalker450.
The idea of using time that hasn't occured yet. Hence why the idea of blowing 5,10,15 IPs and 'recovering' for 45 seconds afterwords. Meanwhile all that action only took 3-6 seconds? (depending on number of attacks and so on)

Regardless if the book says so, it makes no sense. Specifically as Nightwalker450 put it there is no way in the book to time travel. Magic itself states that spells cannot act intelligently or timetravel. (dont know where if it is in Street Magic, but I know it is in MitS regarding spell creation.)

Seems like others aren't happy to let this thread lie...

I agree that Time Travel is not with the scope of SR, however the Interrupt Action certainly is, as it is defined and used in several places in the BBB and other books.

And an Interrupt Action, by definition, uses an action that occurs in the future. Just because you can extend that to absurdity, doesn't halt the fact that a person who performs a Full Defense action before it is time for their IP in that turn has just 'borrowed' an action from 1 or 2 seconds in the future. So are you proposing that Interrupt Actions are 'time travel' or somehow an abomination to the laws of physics?

Rules systems are a concrete way to deal with abstract reality - as such they use concepts such as Combat Turns, Initiative Passes and other things to govern real-life actions in a way that is often not like real life. By accepting the concept of Interrupt Actions in the SR rules, you are already accepting that within the rule system a character is allowed to 'borrow' future actions, so if you don't like the consequences of that you need to houserule out the whole thing...

It doesn't matter how one explains it - the fact remains that a Character suddenly acts more often in a Combat Turn than he should.

Umm, wow. Looking at the rules, I'd be inclined to interpret them the following way-

Declaring full defense, no matter whether you declare it as interrupt or on your IP only lasts until your next IP.

If you used it as an interrupt, it simply eats that IP as if you'd declared it on that IP. Here's the key point: Using an interrupt action, you give up the option of making choices of what to do when your IP comes around in order to react to enemy actions for an extended period of time.

You never eat more than one IP "forward". No matter how many interrupts you do. That IP could be this combat round or the next one, period.

Now, if you use full parry defense + riposte + finishing move, you COULD get some ungodly number of melee attacks across one IP; vastly more than you could do with standard actions.... but they aren't actions, they're REactions. And every time you parry, your dice pool goes down by one, limiting how many successful reactions you could make in an IP.

Next- by it's very name, "Finishing Move" to me is not something you can chain off of. You hit, you chain to one "Finishing Move", and that's it. You don't get to add more finishing moves as long as you keep hitting. It's not written explicitly, but any other interpretation is broken. Between the name and the "other interpretations are broken", I think that's solid evidence for the interpretation.

Could you build a character who could "react" to 9 melee attacks against him in one IP and generate 18 attacks of his own? Yes. However, those reactions would do nothing for him versus magic or ranged attacks... which are vastly more common in shadowrun.

The build cost of making that character would severely limit his other options. Enough so as a GM I wouldnt worry about his ability to get 18 attacks with one IP. I'd simply attack him with ranged or magic attacks some of the time.

This interpretation is based on limitations which are not explicitly written, but they make sense to me. I can't see any GM being so stupid as to have enemies only continually use melee attacks against a character like this; it's just another one-trick pony.

Cheers
Ikarius

That is really the point of contention, IMO.

It doesn't make sense that someone is allowed to completed 50+ Complex Actions in a single pass. It just doesn't make sense.

Actually,
After re-reading the sections, Full Defense, Riposte, and Finishing Action, I'd interpret them differently.

Relevant text:



The bolded phrase is in all 3 of the descriptors. Note the "uses up". To me, the intent when they wrote that was that you can only use one interrupt, and it eats your next IP. It simply moves that IP up as to when it occurs. You can't eat your next 50 IPs; that's nonsensical. I was originally thinking of it as functioning something like DnD Attacks of Opportunity, limited by DP, but rereading it, that doesn't look like what the developers meant to convey at all.


Cheers
Ikarius

So the solution to the entire issue would be the rule:

"Only one pending Interrupt Action."?

Which makes Finishing Move / Riposte a bit more risky as one cannot go on Full Defense anymore.

Rotbart,
Exactly. Of course, any interrupt action is risky; say 3 mooks show up and start attacking you. You declare full defense, and shrug off their attacks. Then the enemy mage hiding in the bush pops out and tosses an overcast Force 6 manabolt at someone. You should immediately get in the mages face and start smashing him, but you don't get to act until 2 IPs later. Suckered!

Cheers
Ikarius

OK, I'd kinda promised myself I wouldn't keep going on this topic, but I am struggling...

I can see why people who don't like the idea of Steve Segal/Jackie Chan/Jason Bourne style melee combat, where normal(ish) combatants block and throw multiple blows in a few seconds, may find the idea that a PC can block, riposte and finishing move in a single Combat Turn to be 'unrealistic' and need a house rule.

But all of the arguments put forward so far are just that - house rules.

Unless someone can find an impartial and referenced definition of the phrase 'next available action' that doesn't mean 'use up your next action, unless it is unavailable, in which case use up your next available action', then the words written in the RAW allow a PC to do the following:

1) Block or Parry as many attacks as they like in a Combat Turn (this is straight from the standard Melee Combat rules in the BBB)
2) On a successful Block or Parry, trigger the Riposte manuever which gives a free normal melee attack on your opponent, even if it is not your IP or turn to act (Risposte manuever from Arse). This uses up your next available action (i.e. your next IP).
3) On a successful melee attack, trigger the Finishing Move manever which gives a free normal melee attack on your opponent, even if it is not your IP or turn to act (Finishing Move manuever from Arse). This would have used up your next action, but that is now unavailable, so it uses up the action after that (i.e. the next available action, or the second future IP).

As no other limiting factors exist in the RAW, a successful hit on a Finishing Move should trigger another Finishing Move (and so on ad infinitum). However, as the manuever is explictly called a Finishing Move, I believe this will be either errata'd or put into the FAQ to ensure that it can only be triggered once.

The reason I actually find the above sequence to be non-gamebreaking is that a combination of DP limitations for the attacker, DP modifiers for defending multiple attacks and the skill level of the mooks attacking will all act as restrictions to these manuevers. Yes, a hypothetical character can be created who could trigger 30 interrupts in a Combat Turn and then lose their next 30 IP, but in legitimate play no-one is likely to reach those levels or encounter such a scenario.

In normal level combats with 2 or 3 enemy combatants, all these manuevers allow you to do is replicate the scene from the first Jason Bourne movie where he takes down the two Swiss police officers in a couple of seconds. That was Full Defense Interrupt > Block > Riposte > Finishing Move right there (as we can assume Mr. Bourne, for all his skill level in Unarmed Combat, is not 'wared and so only has 1 IP). Yes, that means in SR Bourne would then be warily paused for 6 seconds awaiting any further attacks, during which time he used Free Action moves to flee the scene. The average sammie or adept with 2 or more IPs could pull that trick off and only be waiting 1 Combat Turn or less before they could make an offensive attack. I even have no qualms about attributing that 'pause' as recovery from the sudden burst of activity.

I for one think that allowing people who focus in Unarmed Combat to the level in which they are willing to drop 10 BP on Qualities and 4 BP on Manuevers at Char Gen, plus the BP they would have to sink into Agility and Unarmed Combat to make those techniques feasible, is absolutely fine (remember, to trigger a Riposte you need to fully block an incoming attack, so you need at least as many successes as the other guy, and you will suffer -1 to the DP for each extra attacker, so to be confident on doing it every time against 2 or 3 average 4-6 DP opponents you probably need a DP of 10+).

So again, unless a Dev pops up and educates me to the error of my ways, I'll continue to play by the RAW.

I'll probably run things the same way as samuelbeckett, except that I won't allow offensive actions (like Riposte) to trigger of Full Defense.

Yeah, I can see that as a fair compromise actually - given the rules in the BBB and elsewhere support the idea of no offensive actions during a Full Defense, Riposte would be the only exception to that rule in the game - and whilst I could argue that the RAW doesn't distinguish between a normal melee defense block or parry, and a Full Defense parry, it is probably better for it to be consistent that you cannot perform an offensive action during a Full Defense. That would also limit the extreme cases by limiting the defense DP and hence the number of times you can Riposte in a Combat Turn.

I'll run it as "you get to have one interrupt chain per IP, not more". Way I see it, the old martial arts master can beat his enemies by taking one of them out per IP with reacting, and simply dodging/soaking the other attacks on full defense until the next IP, when he gets to take the next out - if he is that much more powerful than them. But the "it's better if they attack you in melee, you get unlimited actions that way" never felt good with us even in past editions where it was an opposed test of attack and counter attack each time in melee.