> > But the single swing has three distinct effects happening to
> > the other guy, none of which are necessarily dependent on the
> > others for success. To smash the shield doesn't help you in
> > breaking the sword or cutting the head off. Hence I still
> > count three actions.
>I tried to explain the sequence of events and why each part of the
>manouvre was helping the next part of the manouvre to take place.
The point remains. You are still attempting more than the usual number of effects in an exchange.
>Would a single swing that cut through 3 ropes be 3 actions in your
If the three ropes were treatable as a single object, such as the moorings from a boat, then I would consider it a single action. Cutting through three ropes would still be more difficult that cutting through a single rope.
If the three ropes had different purposes of which the cutting of a rope would cause a different dramatic effect (the rope holding the chandelier, the rope attached to the noose from which a captive is struggling from etc.) then I would treat their cutting as a different action.
>How about a single spear thrust that punched through a
>shield and impaled someone in the guts?
Two separate actions. Hence most people take the easier course of avoiding the shield and just impale somebody in the guts. But I suppose there are always a few that have to show off just how good they are with their spear.
> > But you listed the extreme example as how one could smash a
> > shield and a word and cut off a head in the same round.
Because what is being debated is his skill through the entire duel and not the single round.
> > What's
> > being debated here is the example of a Humakti who has all
> > those feats at the same time. Unless you wish to argue that
> > in every round that he's performing the movements you described,
> > I fail to see why you should allow the bonuses for shield/weapon/
> > head destroyer feats on at all times.
>I would only allow them if the narrative description was
And how would you describe that the narrative description was inappropriate? What's to stop a Humakti from doing it to one guy and then stepping up to the next and repeating the maneuver?
> > I never claimed it was a multiple attack, I simply counted
> > three distinct actions.
>I can hear the laughter now
I'm sorry but mockery doesn't qualify as meaningful argument.
>Suffice to say that from a mis-spent youth clobbering people
>with swords and doing silly martial arts things this does not match
>my understanding or how armed or unarmed combat skills work (except
>in the case of very unskilled combatants).
But I wasn't talking about simulating armed or unarmed combat, I was talking about describing it _narratively_.
Powered by hypermail