Blood and Fists Question

[one-end]

NP.

Thanks for the responses. I had no idea that the modification for attacks by a style only were for style manuevers and that any other attacks were still modified by Strength.

Some of my players will be wondering why they should burn a feat on a Martial Art style now though. *-(

 

[Vigilance]

Well, I think the benefits are pretty substantial for just the base style, but obviously I'm a little biased

Chuck

 

[JPL]

NP.

Thanks for the responses. I had no idea that the modification for attacks by a style only were for style manuevers and that any other attacks were still modified by Strength.

Some of my players will be wondering why they should burn a feat on a Martial Art style now though. *-(

New class skills. +1 to certain manuevers. Lethal or nonlethal damage. Considered armed for AoO purposes. Prerequisite for other feats and prestige classes.

And game flavor.

 

[one-end]

New class skills. +1 to certain manuevers. Lethal or nonlethal damage. Considered armed for AoO purposes. Prerequisite for other feats and prestige classes.

And game flavor.

Oh I totally agree.

For them I think it is finding out that their reading of the following (as an example):

Arnis is an external style whose attacks are modified by Dexterity.

And finding out that they were understanding it wrong. This went for all styles. All the players in my group but one, and he only recently interpreted it in one has come to be found as the correct manner, thought that this meant taking the syle feat meant your attacks were now modified in that manner.

Needless to say my Escrima player was very sad last night when he was informed that his attacks with the batons would not be modified by Dexterity and that it was only the style manuevers for that style.

 

[JPL]

I guess that's the kind of thing I'd be tempted to change in certain campaigns --- for example, in a tournament-fighter campaign where I wanted to emphasize the differences between the different styles.

 

[one-end]

I guess that's the kind of thing I'd be tempted to change in certain campaigns --- for example, in a tournament-fighter campaign where I wanted to emphasize the differences between the different styles.

Agreed.

Especially since I actually still cannot find any part of the text within the books that would lead me to interpret the rules in any other way. Other than Vigilance telling me so.

Still love the books Chuck! Just want no confusions on my part or anyone elses. Right now..my poor little brain hurts.

Another question I had is this. Some of the styles do not have Combat Martial Arts as a prerequisite. For those styles, when attacking in their zone of attack, they are considered armed. The damage for these styles is 1d3 and not 1d4 right?

 

[Vigilance]

ONeedless to say my Escrima player was very sad last night when he was informed that his attacks with the batons would not be modified by Dexterity and that it was only the style manuevers for that style.

Ummm... ok... I completely misunderstood you.

Yes Escrima modifies attacks with batons, that's the whole point. A weapon style of course modifies attacks with the style weapons, just like Tae Kwan Do would modify kicking attacks.

When you said "does it only modify maneuvers" I assumed you meant, would Tae Kwon Do allow you to modify Brawl attacks or Aikido attacks by Dexterity.

So yes, a style modifies the weapon(s) the style is designed for, and an unarmed style modifies the zones of attack listed in the style.

I hate trying to figure out what people are saying by text sometimes.

Chuck

 

[one-end]

Hey Chuck,

Thanks for the response. And the patience!
I thought I had been doing things right. Sorry that my posts may have been confusing. My bad

 

[C. Baize]

It's not a problem with you, One-End... it's a problem with the medium... Without the advantage of inflection, body language and other signifiers, it's a wonder anyone understands anything that's not face to face communication.

 

[one-end]

It's not a problem with you, One-End... it's a problem with the medium... Without the advantage of inflection, body language and other signifiers, it's a wonder anyone understands anything that's not face to face communication.

So very true C. Baize!

Glad we got everything sorted out in the end though.