09-18-2020, 07:40 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Quick question about UC II and above.
ITL41 says:
Evade. Hand weapon attacks from your front hexes are at -1, and damage done to you is reduced by 1 hit per attack.Does the damage reduction apply only to hand weapon attacks from the front hexes or to all attacks? (I know the comma is trying to tell me something, but it's not clear what.) |
09-18-2020, 08:21 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Like a lot of the technical rules, this one isn't clearly interpretable just based on parsing grammar. But my interpretation, given the context and other similar examples, is that the -1 damage modifier carries the same conditions as the -1 to-hit modifier. I.e., you only get it against hand weapon attacks through your front hex. If you want a more general natural damage reduction, take Toughness.
|
09-18-2020, 09:34 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Quote:
I'm sure that comma is doing some work there, but I'm not sure what. |
|
09-18-2020, 10:59 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
I notice there's a little inconsistency in UC III, where the evade is described as applying to melee attacks from the front hexes, not hand weapon attacks.
I wonder why evade doesn't work with unarmed attacks. Or does that count as "hand weapon"? |
09-18-2020, 01:09 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Personally, I treat all non-thrown, non-missile attacks as part of the same category with respect to these sorts of rules, so a jab is the same as a 'melee' weapon attack is the same as a melee unarmed attack and so forth. The narrowest reading of the rules would suggest some of these are handled differently from the others, but this leads to unnecessary fussiness in play (and feels like nonsense). See the discussion of the Defend action for another case where people have considered how to respond to peculiarities in the language uses in the rules.
|
09-18-2020, 01:16 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Quote:
|
|
09-18-2020, 10:11 PM | #8 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Huh? So, you guys think maybe Steve's intent was that only UC III protects against unarmed melee attacks, while UC II, IV and V only protect against hand weapon attacks but not unarmed attacks, because of wording?
$1000 says it's meant as all melee attacks. |
09-18-2020, 10:26 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
Quote:
It would seem odd that a guy with UC talent wouldn't be able to defend against unarmed attacks. But I took the literal word until I heard other opinions. |
|
09-18-2020, 10:55 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Durham, NC
|
Re: Quick question about UC II and above.
I also agree with the consensus that both the -1 DX and -1 damage apply to all melee attacks.
I am uncertain about 2 hex jabs. Also keep in mind the evade can only be done by someone with both hands empty and armor no heavier than Cloth. As with all UC abilities. It is these two restrictions to UC skills that make them pointless for me. A character with a high level of UC ability can be very dangerous but it is a long way to get there. In the meantime you are a low damage dealing and thin armored fighter. Brawling seems more useful if you are concerned you may not draw your dagger in time in HTH. Last edited by Axly Suregrip; 09-18-2020 at 10:59 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|