Weapon Tricks and Martial Techniques

1) Beside the point Matt. We’re talking about stacking. Pretend the maneuver is Powerful Swing for a moment.

2) Because the rules say so….

3) You thrust yourself at the guy mightily (and powerfully) swinging your blade at the foe.

so Mighty swing +Between the seams, (+5 and +passive insight value) would be totally fine?

how about Rapid strike (-3) and pommel strike (-1) damage, that should be -4 right?

I think across the board , that when you have two weapon tricks/ maneuvers that combine into one single maneuver you get all the benefits (and detriments)

devin are you quoting rules somewhere?

I’m strongly in the camp that an advanced maneuver made from two base maneuvers is a single source.

1. In the section about combining maneuvers, is says to combine both effects. Not stack them.

Effects: The effects of both maneuvers are combined. Single Target maneuver effects are applied to all Targets when combined with a multiple Target maneuver.

2. The advanced maneuver is a single maneuver that modifies your attack. Not two maneuvers. If it were two maneuvers then they would have to apply the stacking rules. (And would otherwise be illegal, but I digress.)

Take Rapid Strike as an example. Its effect is Weapon -3 damage. If you were to combine Rapid Strike with Mighty Swing, you should end up with a Speed +0(5) maneuver that does Weapon +2 damage. If you applied stacking rules while building an advanced maneuver you’d end up with a Speed +0(5) Mighty swing that still does Weapon +5 damage. I don’t think that was how Rapid Strike was intended to work.

A second (and possibly better) example: Mighty Throw and Careful Aim.
Mighty throw adds damage from making an exceptionally hard throw. Careful Aim adds damage from hitting a tender spot. When you combine them for an advanced maneuver, you should get the additional damage from both. Logically, that makes sense. (At least it does to me.) If you applied stacking rules when building this advanced maneuver, you’d only get the +5 from throwing it harder or from hitting a tender spot, but not both. You’d be better off using one of the two maneuvers instead of combining them.

I feel that the stacking rules apply to characters; not to Maneuvers. When you create an advanced maneuver, you’re creating a single source that modifies an attack. That’s why there are rules to create advanced maneuvers rather that just letting people perform two base maneuvers at once and applying the stacking rules.

Scott

A one hit vanquish is fine if it’s only likely to come up once per combat: you don’t have negative hit points so a quick heal/leadership other way to gain some stamina back and you are right back in the fight.

Until the heroes use it on Big Bad(tm) at the end of a long story arc……

the biggest let down I ever had in an RPG was something like this, for years my LG triad built up this event….a battle which was personal for many characters.

opening round of combat, the guy that won init blew his load and killed the big bad in 1 hit.. leaving the other 5 players feeling like poo….

never mind the fact that he was from another region with no stake in the story……..

opening round of combat, the guy that won init blew his load and killed the big bad in 1 hit.. leaving the other 5 players feeling like poo….

never mind the fact that he was from another region with no stake in the story……..

I would rarely (as a GM) let this happen. Yeah it’s cool to one-shot something occasionally but in the ‘epic final battle’ I try my hardest to make it a fun challenge that all can particulate in.

I’ve been on the ‘feeling like poo….’ side before when we finally came upon the ‘big boss demon’ in a home D&D campaign and our cleric cast banishment and the demon rolled a 1 on his save. I’d have fudged it as DM but that’s me

John

So Pedro, ruling?

So Pedro, ruling?

I took his “Scott, solid points all around” to mean that he agreed with Scott (maneuvers combine to be one source and stacking is only looked at for the combined maneuver with other things – not for the individual parts).

Correct