2
\$\begingroup\$

Is there an innate handedness to characters in Anima, or is it only something that applies to a specific situation? Here are all the applicable rules I could find on the matter:

Attacks with Additional Weapons
A character may try to add to his offense by wielding a weapon in each hand. If he does so, he may carry out an additional attack while paying a penalty of –40 only for the second weapon. If the combatant is Ambidextrous, the penalty for the second weapon is reduced to a mere –10.
Anima - Beyond Fantasy Pg.84

-

Ambidextrous
An ambidextrous person can use both hands equally well.
Effects: An ambidextrous character can perform maneuvers with either hand. In combat, he suffers only –10 to attacks with an additional weapon.
Anima - Beyond Fantasy Pg.15

The first rule reads that the game only cares about an 'offhand' when it is used to make an additional attack without incurring the usual additional action penalty, however the second rule seems to imply that all characters have an innate handedness (possibly needing to be specified at character creation) that if they make any action (action is used synonymously with maneuver in the book) with their off-hand they would suffer this penalty.

The question was brought up by the following situation:
A character has an ability to make multiple additional attacks through a ki technique and wants to distribute those attacks between the weapons in their two hands and finish it off with the additional weapon attack. The question is that if the normal attacks made with their second weapon are all affected by this penalty, or just the last additional one.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Either way is compliant with the rules text

What you've quoted is all of it, as far as the Anima group I've had is aware. It's unclear, and either option seems like a linguistically fine interpretation of the English rules.

Handedness works fine

Anima has such an enormously complex set of modifiers for things in any case, we felt that adding an additional one wouldn't really be a problem, and this was born out in play. A -40 penalty to actions that are with a character's non-dominant hand and which the GM rules that is relevant to doesn't really change what options are available to characters most of the time, and it seemed neat the few times it did come up since it usually was the result of consistent particularly vivid narration and thus seemed natural that a character wouldn't take such an awkward action or that they would be penalized for doing so.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.