can I use more than 1 MANUVER?

[Elr1c]

can i?

[Murkglow]

Depends on who you ask and what you believe. The most common opinion on the boards is that yes you can.

[badpenny]

There's a little bit of a debate as to whether it's kosher to combine, say, All-Out Attack with Power Attack in the same round. I think that you can (and should be able to do both), but there are others than disagree.

I would allow a Feint (as a Move action) and a Power Attack (as a Standard action) in one round ("at the same time").

But the default for a Feint is a Standard action. So unless you took the -5 penalty to perform it as a Move action, you couldn't combine it with another maneuver that required a Standard action in the same round without using Extra Effort (surging).

Some of the maneuvers don't take any time (Power Attack); they're just part of your attack action (a Standard action). Some are attack maneuvers, which in and of themselves take time (an action), like a Slam attack.

Check the time requirements, and check with your GM for possible no-nos, like the above Power Attack and All-Out Attack combination.

[ursinethemadbear]

The arguements are ongoing, and based mostly on if people think it is broken or not, then justified by semantics on the meaning of a couple of words in one sentence that can be read either way.

I personally say that you can, but I can see how other people read it differently.

We still have not gotten an official answer on the topic, so ask your GM, it is up to him.

[Emerald Vagrant]

There's a little bit of a debate as to whether it's kosher to combine, say, All-Out Attack with Power Attack in the same round. I think that you can (and should be able to do both), but there are others than disagree.

I would allow a Feint (as a Move action) and a Power Attack (as a Standard action) in one round ("at the same time").

But the default for a Feint is a Standard action. So unless you took the -5 penalty to perform it as a Move action, you couldn't combine it with another maneuver that required a Standard action in the same round without using Extra Effort (surging).

Some of the maneuvers don't take any time (Power Attack); they're just part of your attack action (a Standard action). Some are attack maneuvers, which in and of themselves take time (an action), like a Slam attack.

Check the time requirements, and check with your GM for possible no-nos, like the above Power Attack and All-Out Attack combination.

Could you please tell me where in the rules it discusses taking a -5 penalty to change feint to a move? I went looking briefly after I saw it here but was unable to find it. This would be great news for my speedster if it's official!

EV

[badpenny]

Deception takes as long as it takes to spin-out your story. Uses of Deception in action rounds are generally standard actions, although you can attempt to deceive as a move action by taking a –5 penalty to your check.

[Emerald Vagrant]

Deception takes as long as it takes to spin-out your story. Uses of Deception in action rounds are generally standard actions, although you can attempt to deceive as a move action by taking a –5 penalty to your check.

Thank you! Actually found it about 30 seconds before I checked back here (always the way).

EV

[Murkglow]

We still have not gotten an official answer on the topic, so ask your GM, it is up to him.

Some would say we did get an "official" response. JonL commented on one thread that his reading of the situation is that no you could not stack them. I personally feel he was just stating his opinion/how he plays it in his games (he specifically didn't respond to the question of "Is this Green Ronin's official stance on the issue?") but some would argue that anything he says is "official rules clarification" so...

[badpenny]

We still have not gotten an official answer on the topic, so ask your GM, it is up to him.

Some would say we did get an "official" response. JonL commented on one thread that his reading of the situation is that no you could not stack them. I personally feel he was just stating his opinion/how he plays it in his games (he specifically didn't respond to the question of "Is this Green Ronin's official stance on the issue?") but some would argue that anything he says is "official rules clarification" so...

That answer was murky at best and truly only made the issue more confusing. This is one of the reasons that I'm starting to gravitate back to 2e due to the lack of ORQ clarifications.

There's nothing in the writing of the maneuvers that makes me think you can't stack them (as long as they make sense). The consequences are self-evident in the trade-off maneuvers. If, for whatever reason, the GM felt that there was no consequence in that particular scene, they s/he is free to disallow it. But I don't see never being able to use them together at all....

[ursinethemadbear]

I think the major offender that people dislike is the combination of All-Out Attack and Power Attack. You could solve the problem by making a new advantage, call it Wild Attack, that shifts from defense directly into damage. Now you are only using 1 maneuver, so there is no combining, and is it really broken? You are not getting something for nothing, there is a downside to using it, and many characters would not have it. That seems balanced to me.

[Shadowchaser]

Actually, JonL's answer was twofold. He said that in his games, he did not allow maneuver stacking, but that Steve Kenson (designer of the rules) *did* allow it. So, you have two schools of thought from the two people who drive the system.

It's really up to you how you choose to interpret it, but as long as you don't violate any particular aspect of a given maneuver (trying to combine Defensive attack and All-out attack doesn't make sense, for instance), I don't see anything particularly rules-breaking in there.

[Elr1c]

Actually, JonL's answer was twofold. He said that in his games, he did not allow maneuver stacking, but that Steve Kenson (designer of the rules) *did* allow it. So, you have two schools of thought from the two people who drive the system.

It's really up to you how you choose to interpret it, but as long as you don't violate any particular aspect of a given maneuver (trying to combine Defensive attack and All-out attack doesn't make sense, for instance), I don't see anything particularly rules-breaking in there.

thx man.
I like the games that tell me what to do, but its ok, i can do whatever I want if has sense...mm... it gives a lot of immunity to GM....

[Bombaatu]

t's really up to you how you choose to interpret it, but as long as you don't violate any particular aspect of a given maneuver (trying to combine Defensive attack and All-out attack doesn't make sense, for instance), I don't see anything particularly rules-breaking in there.

There are really only two combinations that make sense: Accurate Defensive Attack (trading effect DC for Defense) and the more popular All-Out Power Attack (trading Defenses for effect DC)

I personally think there ought to be a trade-off feat for shifting active defense to Toughness (the "C'mon, HIT ME!!!" maneuver), but that's a different topic.

[ursinethemadbear]

t's really up to you how you choose to interpret it, but as long as you don't violate any particular aspect of a given maneuver (trying to combine Defensive attack and All-out attack doesn't make sense, for instance), I don't see anything particularly rules-breaking in there.

There are really only two combinations that make sense: Accurate Defensive Attack (trading effect DC for Defense) and the more popular All-Out Power Attack (trading Defenses for effect DC)

I personally think there ought to be a trade-off feat for shifting active defense to Toughness (the "C'mon, HIT ME!!!" maneuver), but that's a different topic.

2ed had a feat like that, I think it was in the Mecha and Manga book, but it might have been Warriors and Warlocks. It's name might have been Withstand Damage, and it did exactly what you are describing.

[Shadowchaser]

t's really up to you how you choose to interpret it, but as long as you don't violate any particular aspect of a given maneuver (trying to combine Defensive attack and All-out attack doesn't make sense, for instance), I don't see anything particularly rules-breaking in there.

There are really only two combinations that make sense: Accurate Defensive Attack (trading effect DC for Defense) and the more popular All-Out Power Attack (trading Defenses for effect DC)

I personally think there ought to be a trade-off feat for shifting active defense to Toughness (the "C'mon, HIT ME!!!" maneuver), but that's a different topic.

2ed had a feat like that, I think it was in the Mecha and Manga book, but it might have been Warriors and Warlocks. It's name might have been Withstand Damage, and it did exactly what you are describing.

There was indeed a feat. I called it 'Guarding' in my games.

You could also build it for 3E as a Strength Alternate Effect. Say you have a PL 10 character with Toughness of 5 and Parry/Dodge of 15. He wants to build a 'Breath Control' or 'Guarding' maneuver where he absorbs damage rather than avoiding it. If he has, say, 5 ranks of Strength he can build an Alternate Effect using the 5pp from his Strength Damage like this: +7 Protection, +3 Impervious (Distracting -1) 1pp AE off strength damage. Distracting as a flaw drops your Defenses by half, so they become 8. Which means he can't have more than a total of 12 Toughness with his power(the Protection adds to his normal Toughness save of 5)... so I took the other pp and put them in Impervious. So he can ignore damage of +2 or lower, and has a much higher toughness check that round. Just one example of how you could build it without trying to invent a new Advantage... though I'd probably let someone make that advantage as a Feature in my game if they wanted it.

Kind of off topic, I guess.