Re: Re: Close Combat

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:25:25 -0700

> Roderick and Ellen Robertson writes:
> > And the reason I poo-pooed it was that David Dunham had
> > convinced me that "Close Combat" is the ability to hurt people
> > - that's all it does. So what if you are hurting them with a
> > long pointy thing or a short heavy one? It was needlessly
> > adding complexity. CC wasn't a "Broad" ability like say,
> > Strong or Intelligent, which could be used in many different
> > situations as a primary ability, and in many more as an
> > augmentor.

> So Close Combat is not useful for
>
> (a) control over one's body in dicey sitautions, frex dodging
> that incoming chamber pot

[snip]

Most of the examples Viktor gives are (to me) *very* secondary uses of CC ability, so would have large penalties associated with them. I's probably assign -5's to them were someone to ask to do them in a HW game I ran (assuming I was bothering with keeping to the rules...), more like -10 in a HQ game. But that's just me. (Penalties in HQ generally being larger in HQ examples than in HW ones).

> I take David's point, and I agree that 'Close Combat' is not as
> broad a category as 'Frightful Strength' or 'Alarming
> Intelligence', but it's easily as broad as, say, 'Know how to
> pack a mule'...

Or Run or Climb or Speak Language. Almost anything can be used as a boast to overawe opponents or get a gal into bed. Not so much broad skills as broad-minded broads ;-). Beowulf used "Swim" as part of his introductory boasting.

> (Not having my rulebook with me, I'm shamefully unable to tie
> this point back into the actual improvement cost for the Close
> Combat ability...)

1 HP/+1

RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
- Richelieu

Powered by hypermail