Snake Style Kung Fu Finger Tip Attack vs. Tien Hsueh Dim Mak

[cms6317]

Snake Style Kung Fu is the Chi Mastery (Negative) martial art.

From the description:
Snake Style Kung Fu seeks to tap into the Yin power of darkness, building up forces of the negative Chi.
At the first sign of an opening, the master attacks with a single finger strike, channeling dark Chi into the enemy's body. This strike can leave the victim crippled, damaged or merely gasping for air. And a light stroke from the master can reverse all the damage.

Hand Attacks: One-Fingertip Attack (SPECIAL! Does absolutely no damage but serves to channel Chi attacks directly to Hit Points).

What is the this One-Finger-Tip Attack?
There is no Chi Ability that does damage directly to Hit Points.
There is an Atemi ability, Blood Flow Atemi or Chirigi, which is a D8 directly to Hit Points via fingertip attack or fore-knuckle attack, however, this isn't channeling Chi and Atemi is the realm of Tien Hsueh, not Chi Mastery. In fact, Snake Style Kung Fu NEVER gets Atemi abilities.

Can you please define this Secret Negative Chi Attack that delivers damage directly to Hit Points via Fingertip making contact?
It isn't One Finger Chi or Negative Empty Chi, because that is a ranged (30') telekinetic attack and does SDC damage, not Hit Point damage.



While were at it, can you please address Tien Hsueh and Dim Mak?
Tien Hsueh is the Atemi Mastery martial art.

N&SS UnRevised states Tien Hsueh has Dim Mak as special attack. Doesn't list it as one of the initial powers available or list it in the level advancement. But in the description of Dim Mak, it states that Tien Hsueh gets it at level 1. However states Death Blow on a Natural 20 at 5th Level.

N&SS Revised regarding Tien Hsueh states: Level 2 Dim Mak (Death Blow). Then never gives a listing for Death Blow in further advancement. This implies that Dim Mak is a death blow.

Mystic China's version of Tien Hsueh states: Long Distance Dim Mak available to choose as a starting power. Advancement states Dim Mak at 9th level on an 18 or better. I don't believe that it was meant to be Critical at 18 or better, since there is already listings for Critical from Behind. So I would believe that it would be Death Blow at 18 or better since there is no mention of Death Blow in the advancement.

So, if Dim Mak is Death Blow, then it can be used as an instantaneous kill (like Death Blow), or as a long and wasting death, dependent upon the Tien Hsueh Master's choice.
If Dim Mak isn't Death Blow and is just a painfully slow way to kill a target; then Tien Hsueh needs to better define its Death Blow (give it earlier than 5th level on a natural 20), considering Tae Kwon Do, Leopard Style Kung Fu, and Praying Mantis Style Kung Fu get Death Blow at 1st level on a Natural 20 and it improves to a 19-20 by 12th level or sooner.

My suggestion would be to treat this as an Atemi ability that can be powered like a Chi Mastery; that the single finger strike and cause the stop of chi flow, that the individual no longer heals, and eventually dies. However, if the Tien Hsueh Master has taken some Chi Mastery abilities, I would say that the Dim Mak can also be delivered with some negative chi to reduce the target's chi to zero, and possibly do damage directly to hit points to kill him instantaneously.

[eliakon]

okay here is how I understand this
1) Dim Mak, while it is a death blow is not the maneuver Death Blow. As such you do not get an automatic Dim Mak and those with Death Blow do not have the attack. Chalk it up to bad editing but they seem to be totally different.

2) as I understand One Finger attack... it is a special unique attack that lets you basically make a special negative chi attack. You hit and then spend X amount of negative Chi. Each point you spend does 1:1 damage to their hit points. YES this is hideously deadly. Besides being rather draining it helps explain why Snake Style is feared!

3) The regular Death Blow maneuver that people get is simply the "does double damage direct to HP" version not a Dim Mak

[Axelmania]

I always imagined it as even stronger than what eliakon has hypothesized. Page 102:

Does absolutely no damage, but serves to channel for Chi attacks directly to Hit Points

This means the "poke" itself doesn't actually do damage (see

Snake Style has the option of selecting a chi mastery power at 1st level. Notice on page 120 the conveniently named "One Finger Chi".

You roll d20+3 (no other bonuses) with a 30 feet range, inflict 3 SDC per 1 chi spent. Cannot be parried or dodged.

I believe the fingertip attack changes this to be a normal HTH stike roll (so you could add PP bonuses, for example) but it CAN be parried or dodged (because it's a physical attack) and it inflicts 3 HP per chi spent when used this way.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Hand Attacks: One-Fingertip Attack (SPECIAL! Does absolutely no damage but serves to channel Chi attacks directly to Hit Points).

That is your answer right there. the "SPECIAL!" Means that is has nothing to do with the Chi powers later, it IS a Chi power unto itself, and works exactly as indicated. It lets you roll an attack, and if it hits, you channel your negative Chi into HP damage 1:1 directly. That's it. That's the special move of the style. You can't learn it unless you learn Snake Style.

[Axelmania]

Um, no. It is a "hand attack" not a "chi attack". It "serves to channel Chi attacks". Which means it is NOT a Chi power unto itself, and it has everything to do with the Chi powers later.

Instead of 1 chi = 3 SDC damage you get 1 chi = 3 HP damage.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Um, no. It is a "hand attack" not a "chi attack". It "serves to channel Chi attacks". Which means it is NOT a Chi power unto itself, and it has everything to do with the Chi powers later.

Instead of 1 chi = 3 SDC damage you get 1 chi = 3 HP damage.

Except A: One finger chi is explictly a ranged attack that specifically does not involve touching the target, and so cannot be a discriptor for a hand to hand attack. And B: The Snake Style channels damage "Directly to hit points" and One Finger Chi does SDC and does not go to hit points.

So both the effect and the discriptors show clearly that, dispite sharing part of a name, they are in fact two unrelated powers. Snake Style has a One-Finger-Tip hand attack that channels negative chi directly to HP, and there is also a one-finger-Chi attack that is a kind of ranged telekenetic blow that does SDC damage.

[Vincent Takeda]

I agree with axelmania. The way I read it, this gives the snake master incentive to close the distance and deliver the one finger chi attack directly in order to switch its effect to a hit point effect.

Neither death blow nor dim mak actually kill the target outright. Deathblow simply doubles the damage and deals it directly to hit points. An unparried or dodged dim mak also does damage directly to hit points, while a dim mak that is not successfully rolled doesnt even blow away a single point of the targets positive chi. It simply eliminates the targets ability to regenerate chi, and when it reaches zero, results in the character being unable to heal. Seeing as how the target can still heal just fine as long as he's still got positive chi, unless the target is immediately drained of his positive chi by other means, a character might not discover he's been dim makked for a long long time.

I think even a non-snake practitioner's ability to pump chi into damaging sdc attacks with one finger, brutal atemi attacks like bloodflow and withering flesh, and even just plain old fashioned knockouts are far superior tactics to deathblows in the grand scheme of things.

If the snake's particular one fingertip chi attack has any advantage its that a non ranged chi attack direct to hit points *might* bypass armor? Even that doesnt sound right though. At my table I'd have even that damage set back to sdc damage applied to the armor.

[eliakon]

The advantage is that while a martial artist can easily have 100s of SDC...
...they usually will only have a few dozen HP at most. Many will have less than 30 (10 Chi)
And you make your coma death saves when you run out of HP.
And don't forget this is NOT a normal Chi attack so you can't spend your own Chi to block it as that rule only applies to direct Chi combat.
So sure you can still have every one of your SDC, but if I just blew away all of your HP...well better hope you have jam in your pockets 'cause your toast.
There is a reason that "direct to HP" attacks are super rare, and are considered super deadly... because they are.

This attack is absurdly dangerous. A Snake Style adept can easily have a huge Chi pool. Thus pumping in 10-20 Chi or so is both quite doable and its basically "save or die" time. So yeah, the attack can already be used to OHK virtually anyone in the N&SS world as it is, never mind if you make it even more dangerous.

[Axelmania]

Except A: One finger chi is explictly a ranged attack that specifically does not involve touching the target, and so cannot be a discriptor for a hand to hand attack.

Incorrect. Ranged attacks can obviously be performed at close range too. Finger Tip Attack is a means by which chi attacks (ranged attacks) become more critical (HP first, not SDC then HP) at the cost of reduced reach and needing to rely on physical coordination.

And B: The Snake Style channels damage "Directly to hit points" and One Finger Chi does SDC and does not go to hit points.

One Finger Chi NORMALLY does SDC first. OFTP alters this.

So both the effect and the discriptors show clearly that, dispite sharing part of a name, they are in fact two unrelated powers. Snake Style has a One-Finger-Tip hand attack that channels negative chi directly to HP, and there is also a one-finger-Chi attack that is a kind of ranged telekenetic blow that does SDC damage.

They are different, but not unrelated.

OFC is a chi power which creates a chi attack.

OFTPA is a hand attack which enhances chi attacks.

OFTPA changes the ranged SDC damage to melee HP damage.

That's not to say that OFC is the only thing which OFTPA enhances. I think it would also allow the option for changing the Negative Chi Attack from damaging positive chi to damaging HP, if so desired. I wouldn't want to make OFTPA useless for those lacking OFC.

Of course, having OFC is ideal, because 1 chi > 3 sdc > 3 HP is a better ratio than 1 chi > 1 HP

Another option should be Hard Chi (but only if fueled by negative chi). In which case 1 chi > 2 sdc > 2 HP is still a better ratio than NCA, but still not quite as good as OFC.

I know 1 negative chi used in Negative Chi Attack will destroy 3d6 positive chi, but allowing 3d6 dmg to HP for 1 chi seems a little overpowered, and would outclass both OFC and HC, which seems wrong...

Although it already does outclass those when combatting enemies of pure chi, except that those 2 abilities can't be countered by the "1 positive destroys 1d6 negative" defense, so if you allow that defense against OFTP using the basic NCA ability, it might be okay.

And don't forget this is NOT a normal Chi attack so you can't spend your own Chi to block it as that rule only applies to direct Chi combat.

I'm not sure on that part. This might be something which operates differently depending on whether OFTPA is being used to channel NCA or OFC/HC.

I would allow positive chi expenditure to reduce NCA as normal, but since you can't spend positive chi to stop OFC or HC then it wouldn't be an option, as per usual.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Except A: One finger chi is explictly a ranged attack that specifically does not involve touching the target, and so cannot be a discriptor for a hand to hand attack.

Incorrect. Ranged attacks can obviously be performed at close range too. Finger Tip Attack is a means by which chi attacks (ranged attacks) become more critical (HP first, not SDC then HP) at the cost of reduced reach and needing to rely on physical coordination.

And B: The Snake Style channels damage "Directly to hit points" and One Finger Chi does SDC and does not go to hit points.

One Finger Chi NORMALLY does SDC first. OFTP alters this.

Just because you say OFTPA modifies OFC, that doesn't make it true. the two never reference each-other, and are clearly seperate attacks. and while they might appear related because they are similar in nature, they are no more modifiers to each-other than fireball spell is a modificiation to a fire bolt spell. They are seperate things that happen to be similar.

So both the effect and the discriptors show clearly that, dispite sharing part of a name, they are in fact two unrelated powers. Snake Style has a One-Finger-Tip hand attack that channels negative chi directly to HP, and there is also a one-finger-Chi attack that is a kind of ranged telekenetic blow that does SDC damage.

They are different, but not unrelated.

OFC is a chi power which creates a chi attack.

OFTPA is a hand attack which enhances chi attacks.

OFTPA changes the ranged SDC damage to melee HP damage.

That's not to say that OFC is the only thing which OFTPA enhances. I think it would also allow the option for changing the Negative Chi Attack from damaging positive chi to damaging HP, if so desired. I wouldn't want to make OFTPA useless for those lacking OFC.

Of course, having OFC is ideal, because 1 chi > 3 sdc > 3 HP is a better ratio than 1 chi > 1 HP

Another option should be Hard Chi (but only if fueled by negative chi). In which case 1 chi > 2 sdc > 2 HP is still a better ratio than NCA, but still not quite as good as OFC.

I know 1 negative chi used in Negative Chi Attack will destroy 3d6 positive chi, but allowing 3d6 dmg to HP for 1 chi seems a little overpowered, and would outclass both OFC and HC, which seems wrong...

Although it already does outclass those when combatting enemies of pure chi, except that those 2 abilities can't be countered by the "1 positive destroys 1d6 negative" defense, so if you allow that defense against OFTP using the basic NCA ability, it might be okay.

again, the fact they are similar powers does not mean they are related. you are inventing connections where none exist. For that matter, even if I hypothetically grant that may have been the intention, and I'm by no means sold on that, but lets say it is: It's still not what they actually wrote down on the page. So unless you have some lines of text in your book missing from mine, I'm just going to have to go with they are seperate powers.

[cms6317]

Except A: One finger chi is explictly a ranged attack that specifically does not involve touching the target, and so cannot be a discriptor for a hand to hand attack.

Incorrect. Ranged attacks can obviously be performed at close range too. Finger Tip Attack is a means by which chi attacks (ranged attacks) become more critical (HP first, not SDC then HP) at the cost of reduced reach and needing to rely on physical coordination.

And B: The Snake Style channels damage "Directly to hit points" and One Finger Chi does SDC and does not go to hit points.

One Finger Chi NORMALLY does SDC first. OFTP alters this.

Just because you say OFTPA modifies OFC, that doesn't make it true. the two never reference each-other, and are clearly seperate attacks. and while they might appear related because they are similar in nature, they are no more modifiers to each-other than fireball spell is a modificiation to a fire bolt spell. They are seperate things that happen to be similar.

So both the effect and the discriptors show clearly that, dispite sharing part of a name, they are in fact two unrelated powers. Snake Style has a One-Finger-Tip hand attack that channels negative chi directly to HP, and there is also a one-finger-Chi attack that is a kind of ranged telekenetic blow that does SDC damage.

They are different, but not unrelated.

OFC is a chi power which creates a chi attack.

OFTPA is a hand attack which enhances chi attacks.

OFTPA changes the ranged SDC damage to melee HP damage.

That's not to say that OFC is the only thing which OFTPA enhances. I think it would also allow the option for changing the Negative Chi Attack from damaging positive chi to damaging HP, if so desired. I wouldn't want to make OFTPA useless for those lacking OFC.

Of course, having OFC is ideal, because 1 chi > 3 sdc > 3 HP is a better ratio than 1 chi > 1 HP

Another option should be Hard Chi (but only if fueled by negative chi). In which case 1 chi > 2 sdc > 2 HP is still a better ratio than NCA, but still not quite as good as OFC.

I know 1 negative chi used in Negative Chi Attack will destroy 3d6 positive chi, but allowing 3d6 dmg to HP for 1 chi seems a little overpowered, and would outclass both OFC and HC, which seems wrong...

Although it already does outclass those when combatting enemies of pure chi, except that those 2 abilities can't be countered by the "1 positive destroys 1d6 negative" defense, so if you allow that defense against OFTP using the basic NCA ability, it might be okay.

again, the fact they are similar powers does not mean they are related. you are inventing connections where none exist. For that matter, even if I hypothetically grant that may have been the intention, and I'm by no means sold on that, but lets say it is: It's still not what they actually wrote down on the page. So unless you have some lines of text in your book missing from mine, I'm just going to have to go with they are seperate powers.

Thank you everyone for your input! One thing to note is that the OFTP (One Finger Tip Attack) is a Special Attack that is only part of Snake-Style and granted automatically. It does not automatically grant OFC (One Finger Chi) - the power must be bought, and the Snake Style Master may choose not to purchase that power, so they are not the same thing.

[Borast]

Can you please define this Secret Negative Chi Attack that delivers damage directly to Hit Points via Fingertip making contact?
It isn't One Finger Chi or Negative Empty Chi, because that is a ranged (30') telekinetic attack and does SDC damage, not Hit Point damage.

Go back to the books, and consider it like the example about trying to take something from a young child... You'll lift the child off the ground before you take the item without a distraction. The fingertip attack is the distraction that allows the practitioner to channel the negative chi past your defences (much the way a no damage/no contact blow from a Tai Chi master can stun the victim). In short, you're expecting a damaging blow.

Now, for One Finger...that is an excellent way to look at it, since the text indicates that the practitioner practices by striking a bell and make it ring without touching it.

While were at it, can you please address Tien Hsueh and Dim Mak?
Tien Hsueh is the Atemi Mastery martial art.

N&SS UnRevised states Tien Hsueh has Dim Mak as special attack. Doesn't list it as one of the initial powers available or list it in the level advancement. But in the description of Dim Mak, it states that Tien Hsueh gets it at level 1. However states Death Blow on a Natural 20 at 5th Level.

N&SS Revised regarding Tien Hsueh states: Level 2 Dim Mak (Death Blow). Then never gives a listing for Death Blow in further advancement. This implies that Dim Mak is a death blow.

Tomato / Potato.
Just 'cause both taste great and can be eaten as part of something else, or on it's own does not make it the same.
Yes, Dim Mak can be considered a death blow. However, the major difference is that Death Blow kills you as soon as it lands (unless you make the save!). Dim Mak can kill you, but it is a slow wasting away. Essentially, it prevents you from regenerating Chi, which means you can no heal naturally, so the act of simply living will slowly kill you...well, it's killing all of us, but it's killing "you" faster. If memory serves (I have no books in front of me, and can't be bothered to walk the 3 metres across the room), it is one of only two instances when positive and negative chi can co-exist...just in this case, the negative inserted by the attack blocks the positive instead of attacking or being attacked.

Mystic China's version of Tien Hsueh states: Long Distance Dim Mak available to choose as a starting power. Advancement states Dim Mak at 9th level on an 18 or better. I don't believe that it was meant to be Critical at 18 or better, since there is already listings for Critical from Behind. So I would believe that it would be Death Blow at 18 or better since there is no mention of Death Blow in the advancement.

Use your imagination for Death Blow...I crush the larynx, shatter the sternum, push bone shards into the brain, etc. However, if there is no mention in the MA's advancement, you don't get it. The way I look at it, for the DM on an n18+, you can SPONTANEOUSLY use DM on your target, instead of deliberately using it...just like the KO on a n20 in boxing - you're not intending to do it, you just happen to hit the person "just right."

LDDM is just Dim Mak, but at a distance, and over a WIRED connection. (Remember, if I answer on a cell, it don't work.)

So, if Dim Mak is Death Blow, then it can be used as an instantaneous kill (like Death Blow), or as a long and wasting death, dependent upon the Tien Hsueh Master's choice.
If Dim Mak isn't Death Blow and is just a painfully slow way to kill a target; then Tien Hsueh needs to better define its Death Blow (give it earlier than 5th level on a natural 20), considering Tae Kwon Do, Leopard Style Kung Fu, and Praying Mantis Style Kung Fu get Death Blow at 1st level on a Natural 20 and it improves to a 19-20 by 12th level or sooner.

My suggestion would be to treat this as an Atemi ability that can be powered like a Chi Mastery; that the single finger strike and cause the stop of chi flow, that the individual no longer heals, and eventually dies. However, if the Tien Hsueh Master has taken some Chi Mastery abilities, I would say that the Dim Mak can also be delivered with some negative chi to reduce the target's chi to zero, and possibly do damage directly to hit points to kill him instantaneously.

A firearm and a knife can both be used to kill, but I can't prepare a meal with the firearm (other than the tenderizing), where a knife can cut, chop, slice, lift, etc...

Dim Mak *is* an Atemi ability, however, it is specific as to how it can be delivered. This is not a matter of combining power feats.

[Axelmania]

Just because you say OFTPA modifies OFC, that doesn't make it true.
the two never reference each-other, and are clearly seperate attacks.
..
you are inventing connections where none exist.
For that matter, even if I hypothetically grant that may have been the intention, and I'm by no means sold on that, but lets say it is:
It's still not what they actually wrote down on the page

On page 102, OFTA does not reference any particular ability. It references a category/class of abilities:

serves to channel Chi attacks directly to Hit Points

"Chi attacks" is a category/class of things. If you want to know what they are, Mind Walk lists them on page 124:

The Chi spirit is also vulnerable to Chi attacks.
For example,
any Hardened Chi,
Soft chi,
Negative Chi Attacks or
One Finger Chi attacks

So we have an explicit list of at least 4 things which are the "Chi attacks" referenced under OFTA on page 102.

Thank you everyone for your input! One thing to note is that the OFTP (One Finger Tip Attack) is a Special Attack that is only part of Snake-Style and granted automatically. It does not automatically grant OFC (One Finger Chi) - the power must be bought, and the Snake Style Master may choose not to purchase that power, so they are not the same thing.

Nobody has argued they are the same thing. OFTA (we gotta stop using that P) has at least 4 possible ways (all of them Chi Mastery) to inflict damage, and Snake Style does not start with any of them or force the character to buy any of them.

Going purely be the description of O-FTA, since it only says "Chi attacks" you could actually use Hardened Chi or Soft Chi when filled with positive chi to inflict HP damage with it.

However, if you incorporate the 2nd paragraph:

a single finger strike, channeling dark Chi into the enemy's body

The intention for it to be limited to those who've used Negative Chi Control to flush full of negative chi seems pretty clear. Snake Style can begin with a Chi Mastery (or Art of Invisibility) and has the option to select from either category at 3rd, 7th or 13th. While they might never select a chi mastery, the many doublings they get of their chi would make that pretty wasteful.

Of course, a Snake Style might only select Positive Chi Mastery abilities and never gain the ability to use Negative Chi Control. But... well, it's clearly not part of the concept. If you don't select negative chi, you are not a "Snake Master" because "channeling dark Chi" is what a Snake Master "will" do in combat.

Negative Chi Attacks will be given even if selecting a passive ability like "Dark Chi or Chakuri Chi", which is probably the best investment in the long run for sustainability.

I propose 1:1 ratio for chi:HP to keep OFTA from being too strong, 1:3d6 (destroying HP instead of positive chi) is pretty powerful! If that's allowed then allowing Chi Masters to use "Defend against Chi Attacks" to knock out incoming chi should be allowed as usual.

DACA is not a defense against Hardened Chi (Shi Jin) or Soft Chi (Chao Jin) or One Finger Chi, so they would inflict 2 HP per chi, 1 HP per chi, or 3 HP per chi, respectively.

N&SS UnRevised states Tien Hsueh has Dim Mak as special attack. Doesn't list it as one of the initial powers available or list it in the level advancement. But in the description of Dim Mak, it states that Tien Hsueh gets it at level 1. However states Death Blow on a Natural 20 at 5th Level.

N&SS Revised regarding Tien Hsueh states: Level 2 Dim Mak (Death Blow). Then never gives a listing for Death Blow in further advancement. This implies that Dim Mak is a death blow.

Further complicated by page 129 glossary "Dim Mak is not a Death Below. See sections on Chi and Atemi for more information."

Page 109 has:

Special Attacks: Dim Mak (SPECIAL! This is the feared delayed Death Blow. See Atemi Abilities for more information.)

So I guess level 2's "Dim Mak (Death Blow)" is a reference to the pseudo-"Death Blow" which is the delayed one.

Mystic China's version of Tien Hsueh states: Long Distance Dim Mak available to choose as a starting power.
Advancement states Dim Mak at 9th level on an 18 or better.
I don't believe that it was meant to be Critical at 18 or better, since there is already listings for Critical from Behind.
So I would believe that it would be Death Blow at 18 or better since there is no mention of Death Blow in the advancement.

9th level was originally a critical strike on 18+ in N&SS pg 109 though =/

The core book version is certainly a lot clearer than the MC version, though both have their problems.

Instead of spending the Zenjoriki to get LDDM you could just spend one of the 3, only reason I can see someone not doing that is they really want a certain chi mastery, atemi or invisibility art. Wait until 5th to get Mind Walk if you must.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Just because you say OFTPA modifies OFC, that doesn't make it true.
the two never reference each-other, and are clearly seperate attacks.
..
you are inventing connections where none exist.
For that matter, even if I hypothetically grant that may have been the intention, and I'm by no means sold on that, but lets say it is:
It's still not what they actually wrote down on the page

On page 102, OFTA does not reference any particular ability. It references a category/class of abilities:

serves to channel Chi attacks directly to Hit Points

"Chi attacks" is a category/class of things. If you want to know what they are, Mind Walk lists them on page 124:

The Chi spirit is also vulnerable to Chi attacks.
For example,
any Hardened Chi,
Soft chi,
Negative Chi Attacks or
One Finger Chi attacks

So we have an explicit list of at least 4 things which are the "Chi attacks" referenced under OFTA on page 102.

Okay, so your argument now isn't that OFTPA is just a way to channel OFC attacks directly to hit points, it that it channels an entire class of abilities including OFC. I will grant this seems more gramatically consistant; (Of course Chi Attacks isn't listed as a term but rather you are quoting from one particular power which could indicate those are only "chi attacks" within the context of that specific power, but nevermind, with Palladium we may as well flip a coin on that score...), the it begs a number of questions because now we are left with a specific list to reconcile with one finger tip attack.

For example: Soft Chi. How does one use OFTPA in the context of soft chi? Parries don't do damage, Snake Style doesn't offer a Power Parry, and as OFTPA is exclusive to snake style it's forbidden to use it in the context of any other style which does. Ditto for Judo. While it does have combination parry/attack, the Parry/Attack ability clearly states that the strike roll and parry roll are seperate, so while Soft Chi could provide a boost to parry, it wouldn't apply anything to the attack portion, also those using combination Parry/Attack are limited to using a Backhand, Knife Hand, or Palm Strike, so using OFTPA here would still also be illegal in the first place.

So I'm still not convinced that OFTPA attack was meant to refer to "All chi attacks" or even "The chi attacks listed under Mind Walk" (Which again may only apply in the context of mind walk as it's never independantly defined). Your argument here is better, but i'm still not sure that Occam's Razor still isn't better satisfied by making it it's own thing.

[Axelmania]

Okay, so your argument now isn't that OFTPA is just a way to channel OFC attacks directly to hit points, it that it channels an entire class of abilities including OFC. I will grant this seems more gramatically consistant;

Not sure what you mean by "now". While my first post on May 14th only mentioned OFC, I mentioned "the chi powers" August 10th and both "changing the Negative Chi Attack from damaging positive chi to damaging HP" and "Another option should be Hard Chi" on September 7th.

(Of course Chi Attacks isn't listed as a term but rather you are quoting from one particular power which could indicate those are only "chi attacks" within the context of that specific power,

The term "Chi attacks" (Ca not CA or ca) is used in both the Zenjoriki and Form description, I don't think that was a coincidence. I can't think of any other examples or precedent for thinking a term describing a class of things like this would only describe those things in context to that power.

but nevermind, with Palladium we may as well flip a coin on that score...), the it begs a number of questions because now we are left with a specific list to reconcile with one finger tip attack.

For example: Soft Chi. How does one use OFTPA in the context of soft chi? Parries don't do damage,

Soft chi explicitly adds "a +1 to all Parries and Body Flip/Throws". I see no reason why that wouldn't be both a bonus to damage inflicted by them and to the d20 roll to do them.

That's obviously the only logical context you can use when we're told that Soft Chi can harm Mind Walkers. It's a 1:1 basis, which is inferior to the 1:2 basis of Hardened and 1:3 basis of OFC.

Snake Style doesn't offer a Power Parry, and as OFTPA is exclusive to snake style it's forbidden to use it in the context of any other style which does.

Snake Style has "Combination Parry/Attack", so since Soft Chi benefits parries, it would also benefit anything indivisible from that parry, such as when that combined attack is a One-Finger-Tip Attack.

Ditto for Judo. While it does have combination parry/attack, the Parry/Attack ability clearly states that the strike roll and parry roll are seperate, so while Soft Chi could provide a boost to parry, it wouldn't apply anything to the attack portion, also those using combination Parry/Attack are limited to using a Backhand, Knife Hand, or Palm Strike, so using OFTPA here would still also be illegal in the first place.

You forgot "or a hand weapon". OFTA (ditch the P!) sounds like a "hand" weapon to me. It's a "Hand Attack"!

So I'm still not convinced that OFTPA attack was meant to refer to "All chi attacks" or even "The chi attacks listed under Mind Walk" (Which again may only apply in the context of mind walk as it's never independantly defined). Your argument here is better, but i'm still not sure that Occam's Razor still isn't better satisfied by making it it's own thing.

Having to rely on nonexistent text and making new rules isn't Occam's Razor.

Even though "for Chi attacks" is not necessarily "for all Chi attacks", barring any forbidding text telling us to exclude one of the known Chi attacks, I don't see what grounds there are to exclude any.

I did forget to mention one of them. Fist Gesture. But since that is simply a ranged Death Blow, and Death Blows already do damage to HP, there isn't really any point unless someone has some kind of special ability where they take SDC damage from death blows instead of HP, in which case it'd make sense to let this reverse it back.

In N&SS rolling with a death blow only halves the damage but I think possibly in one of the other games it changed it to SDC?