First of all, regarding using defensive feats and abilities as augments while 'attacking'. The whole concept of attack and defense actions in hero Wars is highly missleading. Hero Wars does not implicitly link individual attack and defensive actions by the character with specific dice rolls in the game mechanics.
During your character's turn in a contest, you have the opportunity to describe your character's aims for that round and specify an AP bet. Your character's actions might be either offensive or defensive, even though it's your turn and you choose the AP bet for that exchange. It only has to be an offensive action if you choose it to be so. Likewise during your opponent's turn, he might make an AP bet and declare that he's backing off, using his sword to fend off your blows - so even when it's you're opponent's turn, your actions might implicitly be offensive.
Therefore whether or no offensive or defensive augments are appropriate is nothing to do with what phase of the game turn it is, but has everything to do with what you and the Narrator say your character's are doing. Therefore it's realy up to the Narrator to decide if specific augments are applicable at any given time.
I think this is an issue each gaming group realy needs to agree among themselves, although some additional guidance on the Glorantha website or in the rules might be usefull.
> <flynnkd_at_p...> wrote:
> > Dodge sounds a bit generic and all-encompassing.
> >
> > Should the use of Dodge vs missiles be treated as an improvised
> > version of Dodge, or should the player be made to take "Dodge vs
> > Missile" specifically.
> >
Personaly I think Dodge is a perfectly good ability to take. It's much less broad than Close Combat, for example, and covers only one type of action.
> We had a long discussion on Broad Skills in June 2001, and this was
> one of the things suggested. As the system currently stands this
is
> potentially abusive though - If you have "Stealth 17 (move
silently,
> hide in shadows, eavesdrop, pick pockets)" then 1HP will increase
> those 4 skills.
One idea I have toyed with for a while is perhaps listing sub-skills and feats in decreasing order of competence. The character can attempt the first feat/subskill at full ability rating, the second at -2, the third at -4 and so on. This would mittigate the apparent cheapness of sub-skills and feats, without robbing the players too much.
It would also increase diversity among players - we might both be Praxian Nomads with 2W in Close Combat, but I specialised in (Sword, Lance, Spear) and you chose (Lance, Spear, Sword), which means you're better on Llama back, but I have the advantage on the ground.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail