Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

Just got your book, can't find a copy, have a cool adventure idea or story? Chat about it here.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#1 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:25 am

A question was recently posted in the Official Answers forum and Clint's response got me thinking...
When wouldn't a kick be considered an "off-hand" attack? Should Ambidextrous apply it's benefit to the attack, or is another Edge more appropriate?

For starters, it's a simple thing to rule that the Fighting skill is broad enough to allow for kicks to be made without penalty if the kick was the primary (or sole) form of attack. The idea that a kick becomes "off-hand" is a balancing factor for when another attack is already designated as the primary.

That's a very simple, straight-forward ruling.

Now what about Ambidextrous? Should it apply to kicks? Clint's answer was very good in that the actual situation is an important factor. Ultimately, the official answer is "GM's call." And as a GM, I'm fine with saying, yep, Ambidextrous would apply to kicks in some rare situations.

But what if you'd like something more definitive? Well, you could make a house rule that when Ambidextrous is taken, the character chooses one off-hand attack to ignore the penalty. They could pick their other hand, a foot, fangs if they have them, etc. However, this approach locks the character into that specific combination. For some (like me) that's a deal breaker.

But let's look at the type of character that should treat kicks as important and practical forms of attack. That's right, you get the martial artist. Whether it's a kung fu master, a CQC marine, or a "I-may-not-know-karate, but-I-know-crazy" street thug, the martial artist is the concept that would benefit the most from mitigating off-hand penalties on kicks.
And it just so happens that there is already an Edge that many feel is a bit underwhelming.

I'm talking about Improved Martial Artist.

I propose, that in addition to it's normal benefits, IMA allows the character to ignore the off-hand penalty for one attack (be it a kick, headbutt, whatever) when making three or more attacks in the round. Normal MAP would still apply.

What this does is (without changing the original benefit of the Edge) it adds a fairly lackluster ability that only gets better the more the player invests into the concept. To break it down:

Making 3 attacks with the original IMA vs the proposed IMA:
-4/-6/-6 <vs> -4/-4/-6
IMA & Ambidextrous:
-4/-4/-6 <vs> -4/-4/-4
IMA, Ambidextrous & Two Fisted:
-2/-2/-4 <vs> -2/-2/-2

So, while it isn't a significant benefit (and it's not meant to be) it does make Improved Martial Artist more attractive for those "flurry of blows" type builds, and not just a stepping stone to the awesome might of the Martial Arts Master edge.

User avatar
Jounichi
Legendary
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#2 Postby Jounichi » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:40 am

Like Clint said in the linked post, I think a lot of this boils down to how the GM decides to rule. A person might not be able to kick and wield a great weapon at once because the great weapon requires two hands and thus precludes any additional attacks. On the other hand, the GM could allow the kick if the character takes a -4 penalty to wielding the great weapon as if it were only in one hand. An Edge could overcome this, but it would also have to be viable while wielding a weapon in each hand (or a weapon and shield combo). That can get messy to try and rationalize in the chaos of combat.

You can abstract the Fighting skill and how it's treated. A character with Martial Arts doesn't have to throw a punch. Their whole body is a weapon. They might headbutt, knee, or elbow their intended target. There's an Edge from Space 1889 called Flying Kick, and it doesn't specifically mention a -2 penalty to Fighting so I wouldn't think to include it. I treat dexterity and handedness as being dominant sides, so it doesn't matter if the strike is delivered with hands or feet. I only apply the off-hand penalty if they want to use their other side. Sometimes that can still get kind of messy. A right-handed martial artist rests their stance on the back leg, which is usually their right. If they wanted to kick, they might be using their weak side. A lot of it is going to come down to trappings and how they describe it. That's why we ask for these before assigning traits and penalties to each roll.

All that being said, I'm trying to figure out the point of proposed change/houserule to Improved Martial Arts. I agree with the sentiment that it's a pretty weak Edge, but a character can't even make three attacks in a turn unless they invest in Frenzy. And even then, two of the Fighting dice and rolled with a single Wild Die. It's more practical to just take Ambidextrous than to Invest in Martial Artist first.
"Rush not in to fights. Long is the war. Only by surviving it, will you prevail." -Yoda
"Wise man once say, 'forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.'" -Michelangelo

User avatar
ZenFox42
Veteran
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#3 Postby ZenFox42 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:00 am

From simulations I've run, the original benefit of IMA (an extra d6 instead of an extra d4) adds about a 10% improvement to your chances of winning a battle (as do Block, Dodge, and Brawler, for comparison).

Including Ambidextrous to a multi-attack roll also adds about a 10% improvement.

So, it *is* a significant benefit, doubling the Edge's effectiveness.

How about a house rule of "if you have Ambidextrous, and you're not making a Two-Handed attack, you can use any one other limb (or fangs, head-butt, tail swipe, etc.) without the -2 'off-hand' penalty"? Choice of limb to be made on a per-attack basis.
Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases
Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating
And:historical tech levels,generic sci-fi tech levels

Freemage
Veteran
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#4 Postby Freemage » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:53 am

Alternately:

Base rule: Kicks are considered off-hand attacks by the untrained.

Boot to the Head (Combat Edge, Seasoned, Martial Artist or Brawler, Agility d6, Fighting d6)
You've trained to deliver kicks with accuracy. You do not suffer an 'off-hand' penalty when kicking someone. This attack does your normal unarmed attack damage.

Fancy Footwork (Combat Edge, Veteran, Martial Artist or Brawler, Agility d8)
You may make a kick attack without suffering a MAP. This does not negate the 'off-hand' penalty for kick attacks.

The only concern is that this in theory allows a character who has heavily invested in this approach to make four attacks a round at no penalty (Frenzy/Improved Frenzy, Martial Artist or Brawler, Boot to the Head, Fancy Footwork, Ambidextrous, Two-Fisted). Personally, I think a seven-Edge combo balances that out pretty well, but others' mileage may vary.

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#5 Postby ValhallaGH » Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:00 pm

Freemage wrote:The only concern is that this in theory allows a character who has heavily invested in this approach to make four attacks a round at no penalty (Frenzy/Improved Frenzy, Martial Artist or Brawler, Boot to the Head, Fancy Footwork, Ambidextrous, Two-Fisted). Personally, I think a seven-Edge combo balances that out pretty well, but others' mileage may vary.

Unfortunately, unarmed combat is the most damaging attack style in the core rules. Specifically, because of the Martial Arts Master edges, which can be applies up to 5 times.
Without magic, that becomes Str+d6+12 damage. With a d12+2 Strength (Professional (Strength) edge) and Wild Attack, an unarmed attack deals d12+d6+16, average 27.3 damage per hit (minimum 18). Toss in Berserk for another +2 damage and a virtual certainty that you'll hit with a raise (which can be +d8 damage, average 5.1 more damage). Even Toughest Man Alive gets wrecked by four attacks like that.
With magic, you get to add smite and damage field to that.

Put that into Savage Rifts and you've got Bursters adding their own fiery aura to that. :cry:
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Freemage
Veteran
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#6 Postby Freemage » Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:29 pm

ValhallaGH wrote:
Freemage wrote:The only concern is that this in theory allows a character who has heavily invested in this approach to make four attacks a round at no penalty (Frenzy/Improved Frenzy, Martial Artist or Brawler, Boot to the Head, Fancy Footwork, Ambidextrous, Two-Fisted). Personally, I think a seven-Edge combo balances that out pretty well, but others' mileage may vary.

Unfortunately, unarmed combat is the most damaging attack style in the core rules. Specifically, because of the Martial Arts Master edges, which can be applies up to 5 times.
Without magic, that becomes Str+d6+12 damage. With a d12+2 Strength (Professional (Strength) edge) and Wild Attack, an unarmed attack deals d12+d6+16, average 27.3 damage per hit (minimum 18). Toss in Berserk for another +2 damage and a virtual certainty that you'll hit with a raise (which can be +d8 damage, average 5.1 more damage). Even Toughest Man Alive gets wrecked by four attacks like that.
With magic, you get to add smite and damage field to that.

Put that into Savage Rifts and you've got Bursters adding their own fiery aura to that. :cry:


Ahhh... See, I haven't played in a campaign that went much past the first Legendary tier or so; the notion of a character with x5 Martial Arts Master Edges is thus nigh-inconceivable to me. (Granted, Savage Rifts opens up the potential a bit more, but I haven't seen a dedicated MA build in SR, either, so far.)

User avatar
Alrik_vas
Seasoned
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#7 Postby Alrik_vas » Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:35 pm

Kick should only count as an off hand attack if you're already making an attack. If it's the only attack you are making, it shouldn't be penalized.

If you have ambidexterity, then sure negate the penalty when using a kick with something else.

People untrained in kicking? Okay...sure...but really, that's like having a low fighting die, not necessarily missing a specialized edge for kicking. I mean honestly. Yes, a lifetime of training can get you great kicks that will shatter bone and KO people. That's the martial artist, bruiser and improved martial artist edges though, at least to me.

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#8 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:29 pm

Jounichi wrote:Like Clint said in the linked post, I think a lot of this boils down to how the GM decides to rule.

Yep. I wasn't reputing Clint's answer. Or even disagreeing with it.

Jounichi wrote:You can abstract the Fighting skill and how it's treated. A character with Martial Arts doesn't have to throw a punch. Their whole body is a weapon. They might headbutt, knee, or elbow their intended target.

I would say that Fighting not only could be abstract, but necessarily is abstract depending on character concept.

Jounichi wrote:There's an Edge from Space 1889 called Flying Kick, and it doesn't specifically mention a -2 penalty to Fighting so I wouldn't think to include it.

IIRC, Flying Kick lets you use a d12 instead of d6 for your unarmed damage roll and requires the kick to be the primary attack. I said in my OP that a kick as a primary attack should be exempt from an off-hand penalty.

Jounichi wrote:All that being said, I'm trying to figure out the point of proposed change/houserule to Improved Martial Arts. I agree with the sentiment that it's a pretty weak Edge, but a character can't even make three attacks in a turn unless they invest in Frenzy. And even then, two of the Fighting dice and rolled with a single Wild Die. It's more practical to just take Ambidextrous than to Invest in Martial Artist first.


Is there a hard rule restricting attacks to 2(barring the use of Frenzy)?? The only restriction I know of is for repeat actions (and Frenzy circumvents that anyway, at least for attacks). I see no issue if someone wants to do a right punch, left punch, kick (or headbutt, etc.) combo since it comes with appropriate penalties.

My proposed addition to IMA is pretty niche and meant to fill a specific concept.

Freemage
Veteran
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#9 Postby Freemage » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:49 pm

Alrik_vas wrote:Kick should only count as an off hand attack if you're already making an attack. If it's the only attack you are making, it shouldn't be penalized.

If you have ambidexterity, then sure negate the penalty when using a kick with something else.

People untrained in kicking? Okay...sure...but really, that's like having a low fighting die, not necessarily missing a specialized edge for kicking. I mean honestly. Yes, a lifetime of training can get you great kicks that will shatter bone and KO people. That's the martial artist, bruiser and improved martial artist edges though, at least to me.


Here's the issue:

Situation 1: Picture a character holding a pistol in their good hand, and a dagger in the other. He shoots a few rounds off early in the combat, and then, when someone comes running up at him, switches to using the dagger. By RAW, the dagger attacks will be at the off-hand penalty, but if he's not also shooting the gun, there's no MAP involved.

Situation 2: Same situation, except that instead of a dagger, he has an empty hand and Martial Artist. Pretty clearly, by RAW, he's still at a -2 when using the punch attack.

Situation 3: Same situation, but now, instead of using his fist, he kicks. By your ruling, he's suddenly NOT dealing with the off-hand penalty--unless he also shoots the gun, in which case he suddenly gets hit with both the OHP and the MAP. Also, suppose he uses the dagger and kicks--do they both now have the off-hand penalty?

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#10 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:52 pm

ZenFox42 wrote:From simulations I've run, the original benefit of IMA (an extra d6 instead of an extra d4) adds about a 10% improvement to your chances of winning a battle (as do Block, Dodge, and Brawler, for comparison).

Including Ambidextrous to a multi-attack roll also adds about a 10% improvement.

So, it *is* a significant benefit, doubling the Edge's effectiveness.


I'm not going to challenge your assessment of IMA since I have no better information, but I question how the proposed addition "doubles" the Edge's value.
First, it only kicks in when the player declares three attacks, meaning the stacked penalties make it almost useless. It only begins to shine once coupled with Ambidextrous and Two Fisted. So it's more of a situstional perk for dedicated builds.

How about a house rule of "if you have Ambidextrous, and you're not making a Two-Handed attack, you can use any one other limb (or fangs, head-butt, tail swipe, etc.) without the -2 'off-hand' penalty"? Choice of limb to be made on a per-attack basis.

Sure. That was pretty much what I said when I agreed with Clint.

I realise I failed to make clear that my OP was really three separate thoughts on the topic. Sorry for any confusion.

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#11 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:04 pm

Freemage wrote:Situation 3: Same situation, but now, instead of using his fist, he kicks. By your ruling, he's suddenly NOT dealing with the off-hand penalty--unless he also shoots the gun, in which case he suddenly gets hit with both the OHP and the MAP. Also, suppose he uses the dagger and kicks--do they both now have the off-hand penalty?


But people generally have a "primary leg" as well. Should they suffer penalties to the attack when a primary hand doesn't?

Applied to your example though, the person would be sacrificing an extra d4 damage (from the dagger) for a better chance to hit (no OHP).

User avatar
Jounichi
Legendary
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#12 Postby Jounichi » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:25 pm

For typing a lot you didn't end up saying much. The first two bits didn't need to be there, and by segmenting them you remove them from their intended context.

Deskepticon wrote:
Jounichi wrote:There's an Edge from Space 1889 called Flying Kick, and it doesn't specifically mention a -2 penalty to Fighting so I wouldn't think to include it.

IIRC, Flying Kick lets you use a d12 instead of d6 for your unarmed damage roll and requires the kick to be the primary attack. I said in my OP that a kick as a primary attack should be exempt from an off-hand penalty.

Flying Kick doesn't change how damage is calculated. It just allows a character to close the gap, attack, and withdraw all as a single action without provoking an attack for withdrawing. It also doesn't say the attack has to be a kick, but it's implied by the name and in my opinion it's disingenuous to not kick. If you want an Edge which specifically does call out kicking, there's one from Deadlands called Feet of Fury you may wish to look at.

Deskepticon wrote:
Jounichi wrote:All that being said, I'm trying to figure out the point of proposed change/houserule to Improved Martial Arts. I agree with the sentiment that it's a pretty weak Edge, but a character can't even make three attacks in a turn unless they invest in Frenzy. And even then, two of the Fighting dice and rolled with a single Wild Die. It's more practical to just take Ambidextrous than to Invest in Martial Artist first.

Is there a hard rule restricting attacks to 2(barring the use of Frenzy)?? The only restriction I know of is for repeat actions (and Frenzy circumvents that anyway, at least for attacks). I see no issue if someone wants to do a right punch, left punch, kick (or headbutt, etc.) combo since it comes with appropriate penalties.

My proposed addition to IMA is pretty niche and meant to fill a specific concept.

The hard rules are you cannot duplicate an action, and that you only have two "hands" for attacking (Fighting, Shooting, Spellcasting, Throwing, etc) in combat. Frenzy doesn't duplicate an action; it effectively increases the "rate of fire" of your main hand's attack. This would naturally include any two-handed weapon as your main hand is [partially] manipulating it. You would have to break a central conceit of the game's combat in order to accommodate attacks from three "hands" or limbs. But I'm not saying you can't. Obviously, at your table Rule Zero comes into play. You just need to know what implementing it entails.

The multi-action penalty for three attacks with no Edges to offset them is -4/-6/-6. Ambidextrous would only affect one of the off-hands, but Two Fisted is a bit more difficult. It specifically applies to MAP for attacking with each hand, and is only intended to apply to two hands. Would the kick still be at full MAP plus ambidextrous? Could a player spread the Edges out to give each of their subsequent attacks a better chance of success while still limiting their overall effectiveness? Not only is that more bookkeeping, but I consider it a bit of a nerf. I'd rather have two attacks at 0/0 than three at 0/-4/-4, or even 0/0/-6. That last one doesn't seem to be even worth it. No weapon means raw Strength damage unless they're also a martial artist. Even with your house rule that's only 0/0/-4. And yes, my math is different than yours. That comes from interpreting how the Edges work based on their wording. That's another problem with your proposal: you'd have to rewrite several Edges with performing more than two attacks a turn in mind.

And if you want to make three attacks already then just Rapid/Wild Attack. That's -2/-2/-2 with +2 damage to your main hand weapon. You're -2 Parry, but it's an even trade-off.

I get that your proposed idea is niche and there to meet a very specific concept. I just don't think it's a very good one. As I stated before, Martial Arts can already be abstracted into whatever attack you need it to be. That headbutt is going to be a Called Shot anyways, so instead of just smacking foreheads you know to aim for their nose. Knee and elbow strikes are great for close-in fighting, but a punch, kick, or chop is equally viable. A Push maneuver is sweeping the leg.

What I did was have Improved Martial Arts (and each rank of Martial Arts Master) reduce the Called Shot penalty by 1 (up to the maximum of 6) if the fighter doesn't move during their round. That way they have an easier time disarming weapons and getting around armor.
"Rush not in to fights. Long is the war. Only by surviving it, will you prevail." -Yoda

"Wise man once say, 'forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.'" -Michelangelo

User avatar
Zadmar
Legendary
Posts: 3290
Age: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:59 am
Location: Munich
Contact:

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#13 Postby Zadmar » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:51 pm

Deskepticon wrote:I propose, that in addition to it's normal benefits, IMA allows the character to ignore the off-hand penalty for one attack (be it a kick, headbutt, whatever) when making three or more attacks in the round. Normal MAP would still apply.

I proposed an Edge a couple of years ago that addressed the same issue in a slightly different way, perhaps you might find it of interest:

Zadmar wrote:
Jounichi wrote:If you're just fighting unarmed and using a single attack, then I don't think it matters as much exactly how you attack because you're using your whole body to fight; especially if you're a Martial Artist.

That's what I argued a few posts back as well, but this post makes it clear that officially a kick is always an offhand attack.

Perhaps I'll add another Edge:

Full-Body Fighter
Requirements: Novice, Agility d8, Martial Artist
 You never suffer an offhand penalty when making unarmed attacks. In addition, you may perform one extra unarmed attack action each round which doesn't use your hands, such as a kick or headbutt. This extra attack still incurs the standard multiaction penalty, and doesn't benefit from Two-Fisted, nor it is affected by what your hands are doing or what you're holding.

Notes:

Ambidextrous negates the offhand penalty for your hands, but doesn't apply to kicks, knees, headbutts, etc. However Ambidextrous does apply to weapons (melee and ranged) as well as any non-combat actions that require a hand. So each Edge has its niche.

The extra attack sounds better than it is. Because of the MAP, it's generally a zero-sum maneuver (much like the Frenzy Edge, which I ended up treating as a free maneuver in my games). However it does mean you can now play the action-movie hero who kicks one foe while blasting another with his shotgun or dual pistols.
My blog: Savage Stuff. I've also written some free tools and supplements.

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#14 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:53 pm

Zadmar wrote:I proposed an Edge a couple of years ago that addressed the same issue in a slightly different way, perhaps you might find it of interest:


I like it. Mechanically it seems the same to what I proposed.
The difference being that with Full Body Fighter the character gains the benefit with one Edge, whereas my idea requires two for the same benefit (Ambidextrous & Improved Martial Artist).

Freemage
Veteran
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#15 Postby Freemage » Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:58 pm

Deskepticon wrote:
Freemage wrote:Situation 3: Same situation, but now, instead of using his fist, he kicks. By your ruling, he's suddenly NOT dealing with the off-hand penalty--unless he also shoots the gun, in which case he suddenly gets hit with both the OHP and the MAP. Also, suppose he uses the dagger and kicks--do they both now have the off-hand penalty?


But people generally have a "primary leg" as well. Should they suffer penalties to the attack when a primary hand doesn't?

Applied to your example though, the person would be sacrificing an extra d4 damage (from the dagger) for a better chance to hit (no OHP).

I'm saying that yes, the primary leg should have a penalty, because it's not as great a difference between the two.

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#16 Postby Deskepticon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:35 pm

Freemage wrote:I'm saying that yes, the primary leg should have a penalty, because it's not as great a difference between the two.

And according to Clint, you'd be right. :lol:
Ah, well. I'm the goose.

Porkchop Express
Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:15 am

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#17 Postby Porkchop Express » Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:18 pm

I have generally played it as kicking is an unarmed strike that doesn't incur any offhand penalties. It does strength damage (unless the PC has martial artist) and would incur a multi-action penalty (unless if is the second attack of a character with the two-fisted edge). The ambidextrous edge still has the advantage of letting you wield two weapons or performing tasks equally effective with either hand in the event of an injury, so I think it still has tremendous value as an edge.

User avatar
ZenFox42
Veteran
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:25 am

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#18 Postby ZenFox42 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:57 am

Deskepticon wrote:Is there a hard rule restricting attacks to 2(barring the use of Frenzy)?? The only restriction I know of is for repeat actions (and Frenzy circumvents that anyway, at least for attacks). I see no issue if someone wants to do a right punch, left punch, kick (or headbutt, etc.) combo since it comes with appropriate penalties.


Clint has made it quite clear that by RAW the most attacks you can take without Edges is 2, HERE :

Clint wrote:
tameknight wrote:Does a kick/headbutt count as an off-hand attack ? So if a character wanted to do three unarmed attacks in a round one a punch the other a kick and the third a headbutt and he did not have ambidextrous would he make the attacks at a -4 or a -6 penalty.


Can't be done. Characters get a max of two attacks barring a special ability (primarily an Edge of some kind).

It doesn't matter if the attacks are described as a headbutt, kicks, whatever, it's still limited to two attacks.

And yep, any that aren't with the primary hand would count as "offhand."
Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases

Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating

And:historical tech levels,generic sci-fi tech levels

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#19 Postby Deskepticon » Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:08 am

Jounichi wrote:
Deskepticon wrote:IIRC, Flying Kick lets you use a d12 instead of d6 for your unarmed damage roll and requires the kick to be the primary attack. I said in my OP that a kick as a primary attack should be exempt from an off-hand penalty.

Flying Kick doesn't change how damage is calculated. It just allows a character to close the gap, attack, and withdraw all as a single action without provoking an attack for withdrawing. It also doesn't say the attack has to be a kick, but it's implied by the name and in my opinion it's disingenuous to not kick.

You know, I was thinking of "Flying Kick" from a different game system entirely :oops:
Oh well. My point, however, was that whether using an Edge or a plain ole attack, if the kick (or other unarmed attack) was designated as "primary" then it should suffer no OHP. And from what I can tell, we're actually in agreement on this. And for that matter, so does Clint.
I guess my confusion comes from the fact that you seem to be framing your agreement in the form of an argument. :?

Jounichi wrote:If you want an Edge which specifically does call out kicking, there's one from Deadlands called Feet of Fury you may wish to look at.

Well, I wasn't calling for an Edge which specifically calls out kicking, just a way mitagate the OHP with kicks and other "non-hand" unarmed attacks.

Jounichi wrote:The hard rules are you cannot duplicate an action, and that you only have two "hands" for attacking (Fighting, Shooting, Spellcasting, Throwing, etc) in combat.

While I can't find any mention of the "two hands" limit mentioned in the SWD, it does seem to be the way Clint has clarified how combat should work, so I'll concede.
Perhaps a re-wording of my proposal is in order, following Zadmar's example: "The character is allowed a third 'non-hand' attack."

Jounichi wrote:The multi-action penalty for three attacks with no Edges to offset them is -4/-6/-6. Ambidextrous would only affect one of the off-hands, but Two Fisted is a bit more difficult. It specifically applies to MAP for attacking with each hand, and is only intended to apply to two hands.
Would the kick still be at full MAP plus ambidextrous? Could a player spread the Edges out to give each of their subsequent attacks a better chance of success while still limiting their overall effectiveness? Not only is that more bookkeeping, but I consider it a bit of a nerf. I'd rather have two attacks at 0/0 than three at 0/-4/-4, or even 0/0/-6. That last one doesn't seem to be even worth it. No weapon means raw Strength damage unless they're also a martial artist. Even with your house rule that's only 0/0/-4. And yes, my math is different than yours. That comes from interpreting how the Edges work based on their wording.
<break>

Two-Fisted says, "When attacking with a weapon in each hand, he rolls each attack separately but ignores the multi-action penalty."
And Multi-Action states, "Each additional action attempted in a round subtracts 2 from all the hero's rolls."

So for starters, the description of Two-Fisted does not specifically mention which of the actions are MAP-free, and the pertinent text under Multi-Actions seems to suggest that the multi-action penalty is defined as the -2 across-the-board penalty imposed by each additional action.
So by my understanding, Two-fisted would eliminate the -2 penalty for any and all actions attempted that round... not just for the two attacks. Although I may be wrong, the wording is not overtly in your favor.

And besides, your assessment of the penalties being 0/-4/-4 or 0/0/-6 doesn't even make sense since the third action would impose a MAP on the first two, making any "0" an impossibility by anyone's math.

Jounichi wrote:No weapon means raw Strength damage unless they're also a martial artist.

And since the change you're arguing against is a change to Improved Martial Artist the credulity of your statements are thrown a bit into question...

Jounichi wrote:And if you want to make three attacks already then just Rapid/Wild Attack. That's -2/-2/-2 with +2 damage to your main hand weapon. You're -2 Parry, but it's an even trade-off.

Actually, you'd be at -4 Parry, but I see your point. The difference being that Rapid Attack needs to be taken all at once; the character cannot move between attacks, which gives my proposal a significant tactical advantage (and no crippling Parry penalty).

Jounichi wrote:I get that your proposed idea is niche and there to meet a very specific concept. I just don't think it's a very good one. As I stated before, Martial Arts can already be abstracted into whatever attack you need it to be. That headbutt is going to be a Called Shot anyways, so instead of just smacking foreheads you know to aim for their nose. Knee and elbow strikes are great for close-in fighting, but a punch, kick, or chop is equally viable. A Push maneuver is sweeping the leg.

The proposal wasn't about handling Martial Arts in a more abstract manner. It was specifically about allowing a third attack with no OHP while simultaneously addressing the perceived weakness of the Improved Martial Arts edge.

Jounichi wrote:What I did was have Improved Martial Arts (and each rank of Martial Arts Master) reduce the Called Shot penalty by 1 (up to the maximum of 6) if the fighter doesn't move during their round. That way they have an easier time disarming weapons and getting around armor.

And that's fine. But it also has nothing to do with what I was addressing in the OP.

Corwin
Novice
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:38 am

Re: Off-Hand Attacks (and some ideas concerning them)

#20 Postby Corwin » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:01 pm

You could always just rule that a martial artist, wanting to make a series of punches and/or kicks, is taking the Rapid Attack combat option.


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests