Forums of the Megaverse®

Can anyone show a rule that states if PP is added to Entangle/Disarm attacks? I have yet to find one.

Many thanks

There is none in the published text (unless it is in one of the newest books that I don't have).
However, Entangle/Disarm are types of attacks, and a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+ and modern weapons attacks.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is none in the published text (unless it is in one of the newest books that I don't have).
However, Entangle/Disarm are types of attacks, and a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+.

Seconded.

The Rules as Written have PP only add to Strike, Parry, Autoparry, Dodge, Autododge, and Holds. As those are the only maneuvers (As far as I know) that explicitly state that PP adds to them.
THAT said, it is an incredibly common ruling by many GMs (so common a rules interpretation in fact that I hesitate to use the term 'house rule' here). That the intent is that PP should apply to all attacks (and other maneuvers). In which case it is often added to Block, Disarm, Grapple, Slam, Flip, Trip, Entangle, and pretty much any other attack (or defense) that is not a modern weapon.

many thanks!

We decided on that house rule as well

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+ and modern weapons attacks.

By understanding I figure we mean 'often-agreed-upon house-rule' ?

Disarms can be an attack or defense, but I think entangle is only defensive maneuver. Much as I would love to be able to offensively entangle someone, I think they need to extend their arm to you in a melee attack or something for it to be possible. I figure a lot of people do house-rule allowing entangle as an offense though. RAW I think one has to rely on holds for proactive disabling though.

I think the issue is not whether something is an attack or offense though, but whether it is a 'strike'. I'm pretty sure somewhere I did read about Disarm being called a strike, though it's one of those things where you're not sure where you saw it.

This does leave a defensive disarm out in the cold, but that's usually the case anyway since many books don't let you apply bonuses or require natural rolls or something.

Body flip can be an attack too... so perhaps strike bonuses from PP apply there as well?

In which case... wouldn't 'strike' bonuses from HtH apply to body flips or offensive disarms too? On top of bonuses specifically added to those maneuvers?

Extra awesomeness when even strike bonuses from WP skills can apply to body flips if you are using a trident (underseas) or something you have a kata with. That may well apply to strike bonuses from WP skills to dsiarms too, since you can presumably use a weapon to perform a disarm.

Agreed Tor.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is none in the published text (unless it is in one of the newest books that I don't have).
However, Entangle/Disarm are types of attacks, and a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+ and modern weapons attacks.

Actually, I believe that the best example to put forth is that it states specifically that PP bonus does not apply to ranged attacks.

As these are not ranged attacks, there would be no rule saying that you do not, when there are examples (and thus a precedent) of such a thing existing.

Only disarm has a (superior) version we might perceive as a strike, entangle is not a type of attack, it is a type of defense.

We don't need a rule saying not to add PP bonuses to entangle because the nature of PP bonus wording would already pass it over.

If it were more broadly "+1 to all combat rolls" it would apply though.

Dog_O_War wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is none in the published text (unless it is in one of the newest books that I don't have).
However, Entangle/Disarm are types of attacks, and a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+ and modern weapons attacks.

Actually, I believe that the best example to put forth is that it states specifically that PP bonus does not apply to ranged attacks.

As these are not ranged attacks, there would be no rule saying that you do not, when there are examples (and thus a precedent) of such a thing existing.

I am not aware of any rule that bans the application of the PP bonus to All Ranged Weapons.
I am Thoroughly Aware that the PP bonus is not applied to 'Modern Weapons'.

So if you know of a text in a published palladiumbooks gamebook that says that Ancient Ranged Weapons do not get the PP bonus please tell us where it is. (book, page, paragraph)

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is none in the published text (unless it is in one of the newest books that I don't have).
However, Entangle/Disarm are types of attacks, and a good number have an understanding that the PP bonus is meant to be applied to all combat rolls except init unless the PP is 30+ and modern weapons attacks.

Actually, I believe that the best example to put forth is that it states specifically that PP bonus does not apply to ranged attacks.

As these are not ranged attacks, there would be no rule saying that you do not, when there are examples (and thus a precedent) of such a thing existing.

I am not aware of any rule that bans the application of the PP bonus to All Ranged Weapons.
I am Thoroughly Aware that the PP bonus is not applied to 'Modern Weapons'.

That's what I meant.