Extra Attack Maneuver

4 agility is hard to get, but it doesn't change your point. 4 raises isn't that hard. Weapon rolls of 8k3+10 (free raise included) are VERY standard and many schools have bonus's on top of that. A current DM who just started wants to institute a houserule that says any called shots to the head (3 raises) are auto-kills. My Hida Berserker will abuse that rule so horribly the DM will cry and revoke it... :) Oh. My. God. Akodo rank 1 on 9 xp. Free raise - First attack. Free raise - instead of ignoring armour. Free Raise - Rank 5 weapon skill. = First strike decaptiation, every time. Give them an Akodo blade or bishamon's blessing, and they can do it as a starting character. There is a reason that head shots are not auto kills.

A current DM who just started wants to institute a houserule that says any called shots to the head (3 raises) are auto-kills. My Hida Berserker will abuse that rule so horribly the DM will cry and revoke it... :) Has your DM ever even read the rules to this game. I very rarely will accuse someone of being flat out stupid, but this comes close. By that I mean it's close to stupid on the other side of the stupid line away from smart. This makes called shot the best manuever period in the game unless you don't want your opponent dead. Why knockdown your opponent when you could just kill him. An extra attack is worse than an auto kill and more expensive. Makes me want to beat my head into a wall. :x On topic. Has anyone considered the ramifications of effectively making the extra attack roll an 8 raise manuever. Most free raises for extra attacks say in their wording once per round and some such, meaning that they will only help you with one of the attacks. I think I'm actually starting to thik that 4 raises on the first roll only method is better, for the fact that the rest of the peripheral rules make more sense with it. It's mre powerful yes, but makes my head hurt less.

On topic. Has anyone considered the ramifications of effectively making the extra attack roll an 8 raise manuever. Most free raises for extra attacks say in their wording once per round and some such, meaning that they will only help you with one of the attacks. I think I'm actually starting to thik that 4 raises on the first roll only method is better, for the fact that the rest of the peripheral rules make more sense with it. It's mre powerful yes, but makes my head hurt less. I much prefer the TN for both rolls to be harder. If you can add fluff to either roll, go for it, but I prefer the trade off for getting that second attack being that both attacks are not as strong. If you have 4 raises to all attacks, why EVER raise for 2k2 increased damage, when you can raise for an extra attack, and then raise for 2k2 on the second attack anyway? This makes the first attack a virtual freebie if you are capable of belting the TN. Say I am Akodo Monkey. I gots me a Kenjutsu of 3. I gots me the blessings of Bishi-Bashi. Rank 1. If those 4 raises are only for the 1st one then the following occurs: Ignore Armour -> Akodo rank 1 First Attack this round -> 1 free raise - Akodo rank 1 Full Attack ->2 free raises, Increase Roll by 10. Take 2 Raises -> increase TN by 10. Bishi-Bashi's Blessing -> Free Raise because I took 2. Now I have 4 effective raises for that 1st attack to get the 2nd. I deal damage. 2nd attack Ignore Armour -> Akodo rank 1 Full Attack ->2 free raises, Increase Roll by 10. Take 2 Raises -> increase TN by 10. For Damage Bishi-Bashi's Blessing -> Free Raise because I took 2. I have a spare 3 free raises, that I dedicate to damage. +2k1. Same TN as I initially had, but this attack hits harder. Alternatively, I could knock the sucker over. Nope. I like the 4 raises applied to both. Think of it as a +20 modifier to both attack rolls. both rolls go up by the same amount. If you want to do anything else on top of each, go for it. You don't get knockdown twice unless you call the extra 3 raises on both attacks though.

I much prefer the TN for both rolls to be harder. If you can add fluff to either roll, go for it, but I prefer the trade off for getting that second attack being that both attacks are not as strong. I would prefer that as well. I'm just not sure that other rules in the book are written with this in mind. The Twin Mantis strike kata covers all of the Extra attack raises if used with knives at 7 under the first interpretation and only covers the ones on the inititial attack roll if using the second interpretation. In fact I don't know what you would technically call the raises for on the second attack roll. For nothing? You are not using them for the manuever as you have already done so on the first attack roll. The 4 raises on both rolls interpretation worked best with the roll the same attack roll twice and make it both times, rather than the roll two seperate attack rolls way. With the first interpretation you didn't have to worry about how free raises were distributed etc as you were just basically forced to make an automatic reroll(much like a negative luck advantage.) If we want to try to lobby for the 4 raises on both rolls I think we're going to have to say that Free raises given specifically for extra attacks applly to both the first and second roll, or to go back and say that it is one attack using all the same raises, but you must roll twice and succeed twice. If you succeed twice apply the effects of the attack twice.

In fact I don't know what you would technically call the raises for on the second attack roll. For nothing? You are not using them for the manuever as you have already done so on the first attack roll. If you don't make the raises on the second roll using the model that demands both rolls have 4 raises made, then you violate the stipulation that you make the 4 raises on both rolls for the extra attack. It's like the +2 free raises to All Attacks from Full Attack, but in reverse. You want a second attack? Sure. Both attack rolls apply the 4 raises you take to get it though. The 4 raises on both rolls interpretation worked best with the roll the same attack roll twice and make it both times, rather than the roll two seperate attack rolls way. With the first interpretation you didn't have to worry about how free raises were distributed etc as you were just basically forced to make an automatic reroll(much like a negative luck advantage.) If we want to try to lobby for the 4 raises on both rolls I think we're going to have to say that Free raises given specifically for extra attacks applly to both the first and second roll Agreed. This is what I was ranting about earlier... I like this one. , or to go back and say that it is one attack using all the same raises, but you must roll twice and succeed twice. If you succeed twice apply the effects of the attack twice. That is more elegant, but more sucky, as you may have already knocked them down with the first attack.

That is more elegant, but more sucky, as you may have already knocked them down with the first attack. A little more sucky, but It still would give you two full chances to knockdown or disarm in case the attack roll may not have been high enough on one roll to knock them down, or in case you failed the disarm check. This might actually be one of the best interpretations as it limits the amount of combat tech you can throw into this manuever, making the manuever less like a full on extra attack and closer to a balanced manuever.

The FAQ actually has some really messy issues with this which is why I haven't yet made a ruling.

The FAQ actually has some really messy issues with this which is why I haven't yet made a ruling.Believe me. I sympathize. :(

The FAQ actually has some really messy issues with this which is why I haven't yet made a ruling. What are they? Sharing is good for the soul.

After further review it was referring to the Prayer’s End Kata page 201.

A current DM who just started wants to institute a houserule that says any called shots to the head (3 raises) are auto-kills. My Hida Berserker will abuse that rule so horribly the DM will cry and revoke it... :) Perhaps your GM wants combat to solely boil down to "who has higher initiative", in which case, you should always burn void to get the extra dice on Initiative rolls and use no kata except ones that give you initiative. Personally, I think it's a horrible idea, but it'll burn the PCs way more than the NPCs, unless your GM plays his NPCs unusually merciful, stupid or incompetent, they'll *always* aim for the head. That means if you're outnumbered, and can't eliminate or cripple every single opponent before their turn, one PC will die for every opponent left healthy. But if your GM thinks that that's the way combat should go, it's his perogative. As far as Extra Attacks are concerned, I am in the "raises count on both rolls" camp, and that the four raises on the second roll are a side-effect of the maneuver called on the first roll. I think that multiple maneuver on the same roll should be allowed, as long as it's not ridiculous. Of course, "ridiculous" varies from one person to another. I think that if a player wants to do an Extra Attack Knockdown Disarm with Increased Damage, he should be able to do it, if he can make the (and can actually manage to call/acquire the) 11+ raises to pull it off. Additionally, I think it's merely a matter of game balance that the Extra Attack maneuver must hit both times to deal any damage. Why not just increase the number of raises required on both rolls if that's the issue? The same can be said of the clause that restricts both attacks to the same target.

Perhaps your GM wants combat to solely boil down to "who has higher initiative", in which case, you should always burn void to get the extra dice on Initiative rolls and use no kata except ones that give you initiative. Personally, I think it's a horrible idea, but it'll burn the PCs way more than the NPCs, unless your GM plays his NPCs unusually merciful, stupid or incompetent, they'll *always* aim for the head. That means if you're outnumbered, and can't eliminate or cripple every single opponent before their turn, one PC will die for every opponent left healthy. .The funniest thing about this is that what weapon you are using wouldn't matter either. A punch to the face would be an autokill just as well as a sword. Hell there doesn't even seem to be a damage requirement. A feint to the head would kill as well.

View Full Version: Extra Attack Maneuver