The Martial Arts Maneuver Throw is also an interrupt action, which requires the thrower to be in Full Defense. So, I take an action to go on Full Defense, defend against an attack, then make my Throw opposed test, and lose my next action. However, what if I am in Full Defense as an interrupt action? Can I still perform a Throw maneuver? Is my next action already lost, or are they considered the same interrupt?

In other words, do I need to prepare for a throw by already being in Full Defense, or can I combine my Full Defense interrupt with my Throw interrupt?

In my experience with Jiu-Jitsu, there really isn't much set-up time for a throw, but there aren't trolls and dragons, either, so I am not going to fuss over game mechanics. I just want clarification.

In general the idea of consuming actions ahead leads to all sorts of procedural problems. While there isn't an explicit limit on how deep an interrupt action goes in your IP stack, I'd personally limit people to only have one available Interrupt action, and once used, there is no Interrupt action available until you are past the IP from which that Interrupt was taken.

If you allow more then one deep, you get into all sorts of strange results.

Right, that was what I was thinking, but in my training, the Throw IS a Full Defense. The wording of the rules doesn't take this into account, though.

Well, I was allowed to drop to full defense, and Riposte without a problem in my game, but I do have 3 IPs. I mean, I actually allow players to borrow actions as often as they like, but they need to record them(as do I), and I will stick to someone who had borrowed 5 actions in one shot and is now going the next four rounds with no actions.

I don't know how RAW that is, though. Probably not very.

As for your situation, as long as it was recorded, I don't see a problem with it. I had always thought that you can do things like that, else maneuvers like Throw or Riposte don't have too much point(though if someone is built with a solid regular non full Defense Pool they are awesome, which may have been how they were more intended to be used.)

Such as ending up in complex action debt to the tune of "the next five minutes." Whereupon after a fight the character can only make free action move actions until the time period has expired.

Which is kind of odd.

I would allow a character to spend Interrupt actions up to the amount they have remaining in the Combat Turn. I would not allow actions to be "spent" into the next Combat Turn.

What if it's the Last Pass of this turn and no interrupts were spent thus far?

I would suggest limiting them to going no deeper then their IPs in action dept.

By doing this, a character who is pushed down near the limit of their max dept, especially for a couple rounds ("Keep Dodging Bobby!"), will never be more then a full round of set and center. It works well to represent someone juking and diving and working at the point where they have no time for setting up an attack. They can at most react with a quick punch or throw when an opening happens (if they have the manuvers that is).

Them's the breaks. If you think an attack is coming that you really need Full Defense for, then delay your action.

At the 3rd pass of 3 for the Dodging character:

*Shoot, shoot* Pass used.
Previously unseen troll wielding a large machine gun enters the doorway on his move/free action.

Full Auto Narrow Burst on the Dodging character.

"Oh frag," he says, "If only I could declare a dodge."

At some point though you've twisted, ducked, bent, and whatnot so much that are no longer capable of doing it one more time within a certain period of time. Where do you draw this line?

I personally agree with Malachi. The number of actions you can get per IP is written down on your character sheet for a reason. The reason Full Dodge is allowed as an interrupt is so that slower characters at least have someway to protect themselves from faster (read more IPs) one. I might be open to allowing a character spend a point of edge for an extra IP worth of actions, but the more I think about it thats about the limit I would give.

Using your example, if a player at my table had used 3 full dodges and found themselves in need of a 4th I would point out to them how they had put themselves into a situation that they probably shouldn't have. My players know that Shadowrun is a deadly game, and if they are relying on multiple uses of full dodge to get through a situation then they are playing with fire.

The character presented above has not used any dodge actions. It was a rebutle to not being able to spend next pass's actions.

Fair enough. I still stand by my point that I'd only allow them to get an extra IP worth of action (via a full dodge that they have no IP left for) through the expenditure of an edge point. In my games (not just SR, but just about any I've played), unless you've got some special power or ability, action debt is limited to the round that you are in. Again, certain games have certain powers or abilities that changes this, but that makes them the exception and not the rule. I see SR the same way.

Or, as an option between "let them spend as many interrupts as they want, but they don't get to act until the next pass they haven't used yet" and "They only can spend [their IP] in interrupts" you could:

Allow the characters to spend as many interrupt actions as they want, and they don't get to act until the next pass they haven't used yet... AND they keep losing dice from their reaction for every dodge until they actually have an action to spend.

The wording could be bent that far if you talked fast enough

...That's in fact a very valid and very RAW use of edge.

Getting back to my original query, according to one interpretation of the RAW, my 1 IP character, moving after his opponent in melee combat, must spend one turn in Full Defense mode, then when his opponent attacks, use the throw maneuver in the next round, using up a second full round of action. This is roughly 6 seconds to throw someone.

In RL, I can go from go from a full out attack on a punching bag to reacting to someone reaching out to me from the side, tossing them to the ground in about a second. (I have also been trained to follow up a throw with a knee strike to the ribs of the poor schmuck now at my feet, all as part of the same fluid action, but I won't bring up the Finishing Move interrupt action. That would just add another layer to argue about.) And I am not the best student. I understand game mechanics need balance, and Throw can be quite effective, given the right context.

Is it reasonable to interpret the rules as, going into "Full Defense as an interrupt action" can also be going into "Full Defense for the purpose of using Throw interrupt action"? The Full Defense and the Throw actions are described in different areas, but could the Throw action be worded ambiguously, or is it a clear and rigid action that must necessarily be treated as a separate and distinct action from Full Defense?

Reading the maneuver description it seems clear enough that to use Throw you must already be in Full Defense (which could be either an Interrupt or an Active declared one) and that if during the course of being in Full Defense if you successfully block the attack against you, you then use the next available action. So two actions.

Yeah, that's kind of how I read it. Maybe a new maneuver allows two previously known maneuvers to be combined. Thus, if I know Throw and Finishing Move, I could have a third maneuver that combines the two, allowing my character to throw someone to the ground, then hit them with a Finishing Move. On the other hand, maybe I should just go on the offensive and work with Sweep.

(Not that it matters - I don't really have a group to game with, at the moment.)

I'm retracting this statement because of clear wording the rules.



They key being "only the first." That's seems balanced to me, and it's RAW to boot.

Hmm, seems like they added that to get rid of infinite pass borrowing-though I actually had a sort of houserule for that to make it useful-but still something you wanted to think about.

(Keep in mind this is a houserule.)

I allowed a player to borrow actions in a combat equal to that of the skill in question they were using. So if someone had Blades 5, they could borrow up to 5 actions. However-every action they borrowed put them at an additional -1 to Defense until they got to go again.

So Jack the Ripper with Blades 5 and 2 IP's could drop to Full Defense(1), Riposte(2), Finishing Blow if it Hit(1st Borrowed), Riposte again(2nd Borrowed), and another Finishing Blow(3rd Borrowed.) But those last 3 borrowed would put him at an additional -3 to defense until the second IP of the NEXT turn...on top of any other modifiers(like the normal ones of having multiple people attack you.) He also wouldn't be able to make any more attacks.

I find it allows people to do some crazy stuff(if they have the skill, another little shoutout to making skills kinda important), but doesn't just allow for infinite action borrowing. But, too many and you'd eventually be at a bad place. Of course, since you had no actions left...you can't drop into Full Defense anymore either, making those minus defense dice pretty bad.


That being said, you can still borrow one action, and that in a way makes extra passes even nicer than they were. My guy with 3 passes can, if he needed, drop to Full Defense(one pass), Riposte(two), Finishing Blow(three), and still Riposte one more time if someone else attacked him. Not shabby at all.

so here's a stupid question.. when you declare that you are going on full defense ahead of time, does that only count for one attack against you? or are you ducking and diving until your next action?

Until your next action.

Well, let's take a look at the wording.



It does say that it uses up the next available action, but it also (where italicized) says that it may be used as part of the defense. I think it would be safe to assume that if one is already on full defense and he is attacked in melee and chooses to defend with a throw, that throw is (as italicized) part of that existing full defense. Where the note about it being an interrupt action comes into play is if one is attacked and he hasn't acted yet. Instead of just resisting, one chooses to use their throw maneuver and in turn it uses his next available action as it more or less invokes full defense as a necessity.

And, it is safe to say that by RAW, one can only expend their next (and only their next) action as an interrupt. And yes, edge by the book can be spent to gain another IP (only once per combat turn though).

Seems to me the fair thing to do is allow the person to abort as may passes as they have available in the current turn up to and including the first pass of the next turn.

So in the above example, the 1 IP martial artist aborts to Full Defense before his initiative on the first pass of the current turn using his one and only IP pass for that turn. Once he does that he then successfully defends so he can now do a throw. He then aborts his one and only IP pass from the next turn. He does so even if he is acting before his initiative in the current turn.

If he wants to act in the next turn he can always expend a Edge point at the start of the next turn and be able to act in again in the 2nd IP pass.

He can also have already gone in the first pass using his only action and still declare full defense in one of the following passes and abort his only action in the next turn. He could then perform a throw using the first IP pass from the third turn. I could see making him wait until the start of the 2nd turn before he could abort his action in the third turn, but that raises issues.

I mean part of this is common sense. If he is going full defense looking for a chance to throw his opponent, then he will first avoid the attack (likely by "blocking it" and getting his hands on his opponent so he can use his opponent's own momentum against him. He now has his hands on his opponent so he now follows through and "guide: his opponent right in to the floor. Slam! Basically all one action. Otherwise if his opponent has more actions then him he can just move a way before he could use his throw maneuver even through the throw is a part of the full defense.

Fair, and RAW to boot.

As much as I would like to interpret the rules to fit my own desires, I still don't see how this would work. The first sentence, "A character using Full Defense who successfully blocks or parries a melee combat attack may choose to throw her opponent as part of the defense" specifically states that the character must ALREADY be using Full Defense. The last sentence, "The Throw maneuver is considered an interrupt action and uses up the character’s next available action." requires a 'next action' to be available for use. If a character uses the next action to activate Full Defense, it cannot be used for anything else.

I also have a problem with borrowing more than just the next action for anything. If Joe has three IPs, and is fighting Mary, who also has 3 IPs, then they are alternating actions. Let's say Mary attacks first. Joe respondes with Full Defense. This means both of them have used their first IP. Joe can't use his second action until Mary has had a chance to act. They are operating at the same relative speeds, after all. And to suggest that Joe could even use up his third action, for something like Finishing Move, on his first IP leaves poor Mary in the dust. Unless, of course, Mary decides to use her second IP before its time for Full Defense, then her third IP for a Reposte. Does this mean Mary gets to attack, go on Full Defense, and Reposte, before, during or after Joe goes on Full Defense, Throws, and does a Finishing Move? Now, it is getting too complicated and convoluted.

As I understand RAW, Joe can go on Full Defense to defend against Mary. This uses his first IP as Mary uses her first IP to attack. Mary attacks again for her second IP, and Joe remains on Full Defense from his first IP, so he can attempt to Throw Mary. Whether this succeeds or not, Joe has used his second IP during Mary's IP as part of his ongoing defense. If Mary hits the floor, she still gets an action for her third IP before Joe. She may choose to stand up, or go on Full Defense herself, since now she is at a disadvantage. Joe, having created a break in Mary's onslaught, attacks. Keep in mind, this happens after Mary's action. Joe could use Finishing Move, using up the first IP of the next combat turn.

Looking at this example, I realize that Edge could be used to create that extra action needed to go on Full Defense and Throw. Or even, a Throw followed by a Finishing Move. The cost of Edge raises the stakes, but at least it is possible. (I tend to start my characters with low Edge.)

Melee combat is weird by RAW and gets very confusing. I do recall one of the devs saying that you could go into "near infinite action dept" with riposte* at some point (that may have been before the wording changing to "up to the first pass of your next round").

*It involves a character using riposte everytime he gets attacked and is attacked by multiple characters multiple times.



Actually, he doesn't. His turn did come up in the first IP (he still has a free action to move) at which point his Full Defense ends.

Ah, Draco, you are right. Joe would have to continue using his actions, or borrowing his actions, to maintain Full Defense. I hadn't thought of that. So, the only way to use his Throw is to take the attack on Mary's first IP, declare Full Defense on Joe's first IP, then defend during Mary's second IP and borrow Joe's second IP for the Throw.

As for Reposte, it uses up the next available action. In other words, it uses an action. Once that action is used, it cannot be used for anything else, whether that is another Reposte or shooting a gun. So, you only get one Reposte between actions, and you have to set yourself up to Throw your opponent.

I don't buy into the action debt. It you are attacked by four opponents, and you do not have more than one IP per turn, a four action debt would mean you were standing around for about twelve seconds, not even in Full Defense, while the world revolves around you. Three seconds is a LONG time in a fight, so twelve seconds becomes irrational.

Pretty much why I'd allow a full defense + throw as a single interrupt. Likely using up only one complex action due to the fact that it's been shown that throws don't take much, but by RAW it'd take up two. My group has already house ruled melee combat into simple actions to maintain the fact that punches are easy and that someone who's good at them can keep pace with high caliber automatic weapons.



Oh, I quite agree. It was just something posted by a dev commenting on how RAW does allow for it.

Ah, so instead of "next available Complex Action" it would be "next available simple action"?

I like that. Do you run into players shooting as a simple action, then going on Full Defense as another simple action?

By the way, I believe the fastest recorded series of punches was 9 per second, while kicks are only 7 per second. I have seen video of Wing Chun experts rapid fire into their opponents with blurring speed.

Of course, Shadowrun mechanics abstracts the action, but a Throw or a Reposte, as reactive actions, shouldn't take up so much time and effort.

No, no, full defense is still a complex action. It was the melee attacks that got reduced to simple actions.

We never got into riposte actions at all. We had all of two characters who could do melee combat (neither of us had riposte) and I was saving mine for when I had to bite people's heads off as a dragon. Which I never got the chance to do, sadly.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. I like your idea, though.

In the end, I think Sweep can be interpretted as an aggressive Throw, and Throw is left for people who really are holding back defensively.

Jacob didn't even flinch as his opponent suddenly transformed into a draco-form. Jacob was maintaining Full Defense, after all. When the drake attacked, Jacob simply had to grab an eye tooth, hook the lower jaw and flip! At least, that's what the drake imagined Jacob was thinking as he let Jacob's head roll from his tongue.

Hehehe.
(Due note that we've received word, from Tyger Eyes that changing form for drakes and shapshifters is a complex action (Jacob would have needed to go on the defense twice), but that was amusing to read)

Yeah, poor Jacob. If only his author was kind enough to make him rethink his tactics on his second complex action. On the other hand, I don't think this Jacob was too bright, so maybe a complex action is "sudden" for him.

The way I figure it, melee combat sucks enough as-is, so having the Full Defense+Throw be considered one action is good. Any OTHER throws, though, would be another interrupt action. I can see how the Riposte ad nauseum is a problem, but on the other side of it, infinite riposte is what really good martial arts can do in real life (I know, I know - game balance) if attacked by multiple enemies, so I don't see a problem with it.

You should declare full defense and, if you have Throw or Riposte, you just use them against anyone who attacks you. Like a real martial artist would. If in question, see Steven Seagal.

I liked the old-school Shadowrun rules where, even if you were the attacker, if the defender scored more successes, they would do the damage. It made melee combat seem faster, and replicated the dangers of close combat.