Difference between revisions of "Rulings/FlurriesInGrapples"
m (link fix) |
m |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
− | I posted this up because it developed as a side question in | + | I posted this up because it developed as a side question in TrialBySchmendrick/TerrestrialHeroVsFiveDragon, but I didn't think my thoughts belonged there lest they appear somehow biased. By a strict reading of the rules, it would appear that the aggressor is free to flurry as many actions as s/he likes in a flurry, including attacks on his/her atarget or other combatants, but the victim is pretty much just stuck there, per the rules on being inactive. What's worse, this argument suggests that, since grappling denies both parties ''both'' their DVs, it would further seem that the aggressor can grapple a target and then beat them senseless with a flurry against which the target has no defense whatsoever... - [[Hapushet]] |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Revision as of 06:51, 11 August 2006
Date asked: Aug. 10, 2006
Rule set: Second Edition
Rules area: Flurries during grapples
What actions can you flurry with a clinch contest? What limits or drawbacks exist on the possibility? Can either participant attack, for example?
The following rules may help in resolving this:
- Exalted Second Edition, pg. 157
- "For as long as a character maintains a clinch, he can do nothing else without a flurry, and he must use every subsequent action to renew the clinch." Also, the rest of the Grapple rules on pgs. 157-158.
Resolution
(Waiting for resolution.)
Discussion
I posted this up because it developed as a side question in TrialBySchmendrick/TerrestrialHeroVsFiveDragon, but I didn't think my thoughts belonged there lest they appear somehow biased. By a strict reading of the rules, it would appear that the aggressor is free to flurry as many actions as s/he likes in a flurry, including attacks on his/her atarget or other combatants, but the victim is pretty much just stuck there, per the rules on being inactive. What's worse, this argument suggests that, since grappling denies both parties both their DVs, it would further seem that the aggressor can grapple a target and then beat them senseless with a flurry against which the target has no defense whatsoever... - Hapushet