My feeling is that in this case allowing a simple switch would invalidate the contest. It ignores the current position and allows the cavalry man to have a strong chance of winning the contest simply through his horse's muscle making the earlier part pretty much irrelevant.
My general philosophy for contests is that the narrative description is primary - the rules are there to provide an mechanical system which supports and gives direction to the narrative. Ability switches are fine provided they make sense within the context of the narrative. I don't think that this particular switch does because of the nature of the contest and because the narrative must take into account the weak position of the cavalry officer (invoking "free will" as a reason for ignoring that is equivalent to - say - insisting that a merchant who is losing a bargaining contest can call on his guards to expel his opponent without any justification).
If the cavalry man had simply decided to ride across at the start then that would be fine - it's not the ability I object to, it's just that I believe that the switch of ability IN THIS CASE does not take adequate account of the state of the contest.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail