[MA] Question about Styles and requirements

[the_matrix_walker]

Still... This is something that should be mentioned in an errata with an official call. But I think the flaw is the existence of the prerequisite in the first place. I could see them having a common prerequisite, but it's really the same ability applied to different skills/actions it seems to me. I marshal my strength and leap/strike...

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

But I think the flaw is the existence of the prerequisite in the first place. I could see them having a common prerequisite, but it's really the same ability applied to different skills/actions it seems to me. I marshal my strength and leap/strike...

Yeah. Lots of styles and backgrounds work better without Power Blow being required for Flying Leap. I wouldn't mind the prereq being "Power Blow or Jumping" instead of "and."

[Kromm]

The Cinematic Abilities and Prerequisites box on p. 141 of Martial Arts might also prove enlightening. Also, I agree with those saying that Unusual Training should suffice to dodge a prerequisite skill requirement, if preferred.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The Cinematic Abilities and Prerequisites box on p. 141 of Martial Arts might also prove enlightening. Also, I agree with those saying that Unusual Training should suffice to dodge a prerequisite skill requirement, if preferred.

The box says, "The absence of extracurricular skills from the style doesn't make them any less necessary."

If we go buy the box on pg. 141 and RAW, all fencers need to take the general perk Unusual Training (Power Blow), then Power Blow in order to gain access to their Style's only cinematic skill. They then, all of them, have to take a skill Peter doesn't think fits their style just to use their core cinematic skill.
If you do it RAW, Cinematic Fencing Styles aren't generally able to perform the moves of their shool own unlike most of the other styles...and maybe cinematic fencers aren't supposed to be able to use the moves in their style and that is deliberate. But that seems weird.

Or maybe they are all supposed to take a perk to get a skill that Peter says doesn't fit their style. But, if they all have to do it...why isn't it at least a style perk? Are Cinematic Fencers who can use a Flying Lunge supposed to not really exist in a cinematic world except very rarely? Are they really supposed to be so much less able to pracice their styles than Shaolin Kung Fu dudes or Masters of Defense or Medieval Knights?

As written, something just doesn't seem right about the whole thing--unless Cinematic Fencers really aren't supposed to be able to access their only cinematic skill without leaving their Style.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Molokh

If you can't fulfill the requirements, just buy Unusual Training.

Hypnosis you can buy outside the style.

But let's get real here -- how many of the stylists upon whom the style is based (whether real or cinematic) would have been hypnotists too?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by trooper6

At the very least that perk should be counted as a Style perk rather than a general perk.
But if all the fencers are going to have to spend a perk to buy Power Blow, and then have to buy power blow to use their core cinematic skill...they might as well use Power Blow. If Power Blow doesn't fit the style...then that pre-req should be waived for the fencers so they can use Flying Leap, which is in their style, without having to get Power Blow at all.

And IMO, the vast majority of fencers in reality and in legend, do NOT use Power Blow. A extra-mighty strike like that would likely break a lot of fencing weapons.

To me the only logical thing is to excuse pre-requisites if a style otherwise permits something. Call it part of the Style Familiarity Perk.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

I'm aware that TBAM in MA says that it only counts for skills that are part of your style, but if a cinematic skill in your style has a prereq that isn't, I think it's unreasonable to charge extra for it.

1. Allowing MA to retroactively eviscerate the existing TBAM rules presented in the Basic Set was a mistake in the first place.

2. Based on the rationale in the latter half of the quote above, I don't see why a Perk should be needed for Flying Leap then.

[Kromm]

To be clear: Normally, stylists who want to use all of their style's neat tricks need to get all of those tricks' standard prerequisites. However, they can – with the usual GM's permission – use one perk from their limited Style Perk allotment to get a perk that waives prerequisites and lets one of those tricks work all by itself. Either option is valid; neither is explicitly favored. This is why special perks don't spammily appear in every style where some component has prerequisites that could conceivably be left out.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

But let's get real here -- how many of the stylists upon whom the style is based (whether real or cinematic) would have been hypnotists too?

Detect (Oxymoron) . . .

[DarkTreader]

Originally Posted by trooper6

...unless Cinematic Fencers really aren't supposed to be able to access their only cinematic skill without leaving their Style.

I was going with the absense of power blow in fencing being a mistake until Kromm basically chimed in and did not claim it to be a mistake. Therefore your above statement seems to answer it. If you want that cinematic skill, you must learn another style or take a perk to get power blow.

That would be RAW, but you'd be free to change it for your campaign if you like :) I kinda feel the way you do so if I ever do a fencing campaign, I will heroically and dashingly defy Kromm and the RAW and just include power blow in the styles! ;)

I will say Kromm that the box on p141 is a little vague here. In a general sense, it doesn't explain why the writers felt that a fencer had to go outside of their style to get power blow just to get another skill already in their style. All it does is try to stop rules lawyers who try to skirt the power blow requirement. Rules lawyers are still going to pound on the desk on this one I think :)