[MA] All-Out Attack option - Reckless Charge?

[Xakaz]

One of my players has Berserk disadvantage. And it is kinda weird for me that he can make Move and Attack maneuver if enemy is further than Move/2 and get benefits from active defenses. So, what if I will give him, say, Reckless Charge option to his All-Out Attack maneuver? If he takes this option, he can move up to his Move as part of All-Out Attack and makes his attack with, say, -2 skill penalty without skill cap. Of course, then he can't ever takes Move and Attack maneuver when berserking.
Is it sounds right?

[Walrus]

You can allow him to use MA option from p. 98 that All-out Slam allows full Move.

[Nereidalbel]

If you're Berserk, you NEVER get active defenses, and ALL attacks are All-Out.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

If you're Berserk, you NEVER get active defenses, and ALL attacks are All-Out.

Nope, that's just wrong. You must make an All-Out Attack if a foe is in range; if not, you must make a Move and Attack if in range. If you can't make an AoA, you get whatever defenses your maneuver gives you.

[Inveet]

Honestly, the berserk rules are kinda poorly written. For example; a downed fighter with berserk would never be allowed to stand back up, instead he'd have to crawl towards his target to continue fighting, regardless of distance.

It makes a lot of sense to me, to disregard the limitations on which manouvers he can perform, in favor of allowing no active defenses whatsoever and have him go for lethal attacks.

['Grape]

Originally Posted by Inveet

Honestly, the berserk rules are kinda poorly written. For example; a downed fighter with berserk would never be allowed to stand back up, instead he'd have to crawl towards his target to continue fighting, regardless of distance.

I think the berserk disadvantage is intended to be very extreme because if it leaves too many options opponent in combat, it risks ceasing to be a disadvantage at all. Berserk fighters in fiction commonly defend against attacks and use creative methods of attack when direct ones fail - they're just very aggressive about it. In order words, they fight in exactly the sort of way that a lot of PCs do anyway. It would be very hard to come up with rules for when a Berserk character might be allowed to use Determined Attacks or Aggressive Parry (especially because these options didn't exist when Basic Set was released). It would probably allow players to take a "Somewhat Less Berserk" that requires some judgement on the part of the player and the GM for only -10 if the RAW version seemed too extreme for a particular character.

Edit: I think Reckless Charge might be a good All-Out Attack option, but depending on the character's movement speed and weapon reach it might interact weirdly with All-Out Attack (Long) if you're using Martial Arts.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Inveet

Honestly, the berserk rules are kinda poorly written. For example; a downed fighter with berserk would never be allowed to stand back up, instead he'd have to crawl towards his target to continue fighting, regardless of distance.

It's been somewhat narrowly, and poorly, worded since it originated in Roleplayer #1.

Personally, I allow Change Position, and I disallow any defenses with any maneuver when Berserk. It doesn't seem unfair, and it feels like a triumph of the spirit of the disadvantage over the letter of the disadvantage.

[Xplo]

Not to derail the discussion, but why on earth does All-Out Attack only allow a half move forward, when Move and Attack allows a full move, attack (albeit with penalties), AND you get to keep your defense?

Yes, I know I can houserule it, but I want to know the rationale for this - if there is one.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Personally, I allow Change Position, and I disallow any defenses with any maneuver when Berserk. It doesn't seem unfair, and it feels like a triumph of the spirit of the disadvantage over the letter of the disadvantage.

Yes, I do about the same. As long as the player can convince me that a) the action is the most immediately deadly action available, and b) it requires little to no thought, I'm generally okay with it. If he is on the ground and out of reach, Change Position, Move, All-Out Attack is more immediately deadly than Move, Move, Move, Move, Move, All-Out Attack to crawl over to the foe and hit his ankles.

If it isn't obviously a no-brainer case of "hit things until they stop moving" but still a pretty obvious way of taking out the foe (e.g. cut a rope bridge the foe is crossing, rather than charging out to meet the foe), I might still allow it on an IQ or Will roll.

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Not to derail the discussion, but why on earth does All-Out Attack only allow a half move forward, when Move and Attack allows a full move, attack (albeit with penalties), AND you get to keep your defense?

Yes, I know I can houserule it, but I want to know the rationale for this - if there is one.

Move and Attack gives you a really bad attack and still diminishes your Defences. All-Out Attack gives you some great attack options and lets you move more than you would with a regular attack.