More on martial arts in d20 Modern

[Vigilance]

Vig, I'm gonna hit you with an awful lot of questions and comments when I get a little more free time...

Cool

I would have answered these sooner but did not realize enworld was back

1. Just to clarify: adaptable martial arts can take any manuevers, ignoring the style prereqs?

Correct. He doesn't get any more bonus feats. But he can take any maneuver in the book.

2. I'm experimenting with a Bad-Ass Barroom Brawler vs. a School of Hard Knocks Master. Interesting. The latter might be more appropriate for a bouncer (since he lacks the rage ability, and thus takes out the trash without getting huffy about it].

One thing I liked about the system as we playtested was all the variety you could get from the characters and their styles. A big roleplaying advantage, as you noted there.

3. Is there a typo in the animal styles? Leopard, for example, suggests taking Dragon and Shaolin to simulate an animal style. I assume that should be Leopard and Shaolin.

Boy is my face red. Yes that's a typo.

4. "Know Your Enemy" --- great idea. Perfect for simulating a boxer or wrestler who has concentrated solely on fighting others with similar fighting styles.

Thanks!

5. A suggestion --- the charts at the end could be improved upon. For the style feats, just saying "Aikido Manuevers" for the benefit doesn't really help --- I still have to refer to the main text to learn exactly what benefits are conferred.

That's a good idea.

Working on the tournament fighter one shot. So far, I have a player who has called dibs on a luchador, so we'll come up with a Mexican wrestling style.

I'm also statting out a Roman Catholic priest from the Philipines who's a master of arnis [he hits your pressure points with two escrima sticks, but in a merciful fashion].

There's also going to be a Burmese bad guy running around...a master of Python bando, with snake tattoos running the length of both arms and a penchant for strangulation.

Since I have fun with character creation, I'm trying to stat twenty characters or so, all about 6th level [although I might end up raising that]. Then I'll give the players a summary of the options and let them each pick one. And then we fight.

Those all sound like cool ideas. Maybe you could have the four top finalists enter the Hanmei

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Vigilance-

I do like this a lot. And I'm excited. But I have a question about blocking -- I can't find anything to explain the specific mechanics of blocking in Blood and Fist.

Thanks!

At what point does a combatant decide to use attacks to block? Does she have to save an attack from her action, and then use that as she sees fit between that action and the next? Or can she "spend" attacks BEFORE her action, to block enemy attacks?

That's tricky. I can see what you're saying about "saving attacks", but I think this is a powerful option to give a character who is a good counter-puncher. Especially if you allow him to take those attacks later.

If a character is going before his opponent and wants to block, I make my players use the delay action if they want to block. They have to lower their initiative to equal or lower the person they want to block.

If a person is going after his opponent and wants to block, they can block up to their normal number of attacks- but they have just committed themselves to the Full Attack Action. In other words, if a person with 3 attacks decides to block 2 before his initiative he can, but then when his initative rolls around he either has to make that last attack (without moving), or just stand there.

And you didnt miss it- that's one of those things I didnt explain well enough.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

I also like the fact that the Badass Barroom Brawler doesn't have any bonus feats or prereqs which give him the ability to attack as if armed.

Thus, you can have the hardass biker who can stack bodies like cordwood...unless he's fighting someone with Combat Martial Arts, in which case he'll be taking an awful lot of AoO's while he's trying to land that KO.

A little formal training [the Boxing or School of Hard Knocks feat, most likely] and he's ready to defend himself against ninjas who kick sand in his face.

Well, I tried to give characters as many options as possible. My three goals for the book were to make it balanced, fun, and provide a ton of options, in that order.

Riddle me this...can a Martial Arts Master proficient in multiple styles [say, with both the Commando Training and Thai Kickboxing feats] take mastery abilities and MAM bonus feats from either style?

No- your MAM and CM classes are keyed to one particular style, and your masteries have to come from that stlye.

I assume one cannot actually multiclass two different flavors of MAM --- to become a Strong Hero 3 / Karate Master 2 / Jujitsu Master 2, for example.

Actually- in keeping with the answer to the question above, you sure can.

This was playtested, and the fact that many characters wanted MAM levels for multiple styles is the reason that you can't take a level 3 mastery until 9th level in one of the AdCs.

I had a player trying to sneak into two Level 3 Masteries by taking the class twice. The Level 3's are balanced to the fact that a single character can never have more than one. So the change was made to allow a character to take multiple MAM classes, geared to different styles. It's balanced because, while you will have a wider variety of masteries, you won't have as many level 2's and 3's, which tend to give you more potent abilities.

Even if you don't feel comfortable allowing a character to "take the same class twice" (I don't see that way, but some GMs might), there's still going to be the character who starts out as a Martial Arts Master and becomes a Contemplative Master.

Heck, since Musashi did it it's hard to argue.

Chuck

 

[JPL]

Those all sound like cool ideas. Maybe you could have the four top finalists enter the Hanmei

Chuck

What I'm still pondering is how to best make a Hanmei/tournament fighter one-shot most playable. If it's just a series of one-on-one fights, what are the other players doing while two PCs, or one PC and one NPC, fight?

One thought was to run all of the first-round fights simulataneously --- simulating a cut-scene format. We do a full round of A v. B, then we cut to C v. D for a round, etc.

I'm also wondering if there should be one or more stories running outside the tournament...in fact, that might be where the real action is at. What if fighters start turning up dead in their hotel rooms? What if that silak master is an al Queda terrorist?

One of the tricky parts here is that this won't be a traditional adventuring party...maybe the PCs are the only friendly/sociable/honorable fighters in the bunch, and naturally gravitate toward each other outside the ring? Of course, friendly/sociable/honorable is all relative...and you could be wrong.

Maybe some have crossed paths before, or know each other by reputation. Maybe a few friendly rivals, or outright enemies.

At the very least, I want to use some of the hooks you suggest so that PCs have a greater range of motivations than just "win the tournament."

Maybe throw in a free-for-all --- ten men enter, one man leaves. The PCs will cooperate for a while, most likely...but once it's just good guys left, all bets are off.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

More on blocking . . .

This is a tricky thing. I think I would run it differently, though. I have a little cognitive dissonance with systems that treat combat as taking place in distinct rounds, rather than just as a cycle.

In the system you present, a combatant can make blocks before her action -- in effect, being able to take a specific type of action before her initiative comes up. And it forces a faster combatant to sacrifice the advatages of the higher initiative, which doesn't seem right.

In a system where a block is an attack converted to block an incoming attack, I think it works better to require that a combatant save attacks to use as blocks -- and if those blocks don't get used, they're lost. That way the PC that has not had an action yet doesnt' have any blocks available to her, although the attacker with the advantage of initiative has either save some attacks to block or hope that the initial flurry of attacks will take down her opponent.

I recall, but don't have on hand, some rules on parrys that were presenting in the dragon that focused on swashbuckling campaigns a few months back. As I recall, that system used attacks of opportunity for blocks, rather that attacks. That's also an interesting system, one that would put a premium on Combat Reflexes (for multiple parries, and to be able to parry if flat-footed).

The system you present for blocks seems a bit too complicated, and requires a little too much fudging to make it work -- saved attacks, for blocks between a combatant's actions, would be simpler, I think.

-rg

 

[Vigilance]

Tournaments are tricky, and from my personal experience running the Hanmei (which really started out as a playtest convenience), and looking at the flavor text (which is drawn from things that actually happened in the playtest sessions), you can see that there was a strong "human interest" side to the fighting, which characters being intertwined personally.

Some players prefer role playing to combat, so you need those sorts of side angles.

I also love your idea of the fighters turning up dead in their rooms.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Good points all around gnome

I think your way has a lot of merit. It makes initiative very important, and gives the faster character all the cards, then puts the pressure on him to play them right.

I like it

 

[JPL]

I also love your idea of the fighters turning up dead in their rooms.

Damn ninja clan wars. Probably the guy from the Scorpion clan, knocking off random fighters so no one suspects him when the Cobra clan ninja turns up dead...

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Blocking

All Right, I have the Dragon I was referring to in front of me. It's issue #301 -- last November's issue.

There are a series of feats presented as a sidebar of the article on swashbuckling. The core feat is Parry, which allows a combatant to use her attack of opportunity as a parry. It's still an opposed roll. Whether she succeeds or fails on the parry, the opponent can make a disarm attempt (and if that disarm attempt fails, she can't try to disarm in return).

A series of other feats build off that one -- improved parry (with combat reflexes) will allow her to parry more than one opponenet, but only one parry attempt per opponent. Expert Parry allows multiple parrys per opponent. Guarded parry protects against that parry attempt. Crushing defense adds a sunder attempt to the parry. And so on. Oh, and a feat called Steel Skin allows a combatant to make an unarmed parry vs. weapons.

Now, these were presented as part of a system for fencing, but if you exchange parry for block, I think the system could make a lot of sense. It might take some revision to fit the primarily unarmed combat involved in martial arts -- but not that much.

Still, I imagine that there would be intellectual property problems -- the feats presented in the dragon are not open content -- at least not explicitly, so you couldn't just snatch them up and use them in your martial arts system -- at least without getting permission.

Another advantage of the attacks for blocks system (rather that AoO for blocks), especially for the one that requires attacks be saved to make blocks, is that it would require some very strategic thinking from the fighter's player. In the AoO system, there is a number of parries available each round without sacrificing offense. At the same time, it would add complexity to combat, which we usually try to avoid -- combat tends to move slowly enough.

Vigilance, I have to say that I really like what you've done with Blood and Fist. There's a lot, as I've said before, that I really like. But I do think that you need to either present a clear mechanic for blocks -- or, perhaps even better, present options. Two options would be the spend ahead mechanic, another the saved attack mechanic, a third might be the AoO mechanic, and a fourth -- one that you might even want to make the "official" variant -- would be a set of simple bonuses for fighting defensively that would require no new interpretations of the rules at all.

-rg

 

[Vigilance]

I considered building off the fighting defensively rule- but it just wasn't the feel I wanted for combat- I wanted blocks to be competitive- in the same way that a skill vs skill is competitive.

That's actually the mechanic I tried to build on- except instead of Bluff vs. Sense Motive, its combat skill vs. combat skill.

I'm open to suggestions to improve the way its handled though, and certainly it needs to be worded more clearly to sort out who can block what when.

What would you guys prefer? For instance there are other options that come to mind- like a Defense bonus based on your BAB.

I personally like the way its done, I just think it needs to be clarified, but I joined this thread to listen- so I'll just listen for a bit

Chuck