> Generally, no. Firstly I reckon that the fact that the ability is
> used as an assist means that it doesn't have to be as appropriate as
> the primary ability.
I did think of that. I think there's something to be said for "it helping" making for a much wider range of appropriateness.
> Secondly it is probably more work than it is worth. Individual
> Augments don't have a huge effect - or if they do then improv
> modifers won't have much effect.
> If there really are a whole lot of questionable augments just
> disallowing some of them is probably good enough and simpler than
> assessing a modifier on each.
> That's not to say that I would never do it but it would be unusual.
It does seem like it would be a fair amount of trouble. Mind you, given that an automatic augment is done by tenths, the math may really not be that hard.
> The magic modifiers for the "wrong otherworld" and such are an
> exception. They really should be applied to augments.
> The principle is sound, but of course the number depends on how much
> Lunar Law resembles Dara Happan Law (there's a very good article
> published in Moon Rites). And I'm not sure that Dara Happan Law is
> very helpful for avoiding arrest :-(
Perhaps true. :) I was just pulling things off the top of my head.
> With most abilities it depends on what the character is trying to
do.
> Dodging a sword blow probably wouldn't get much of a modifier, if
> any. I don't think I would allow an equipment modifier from the
> stick - using that significantly seems more like fighting than
"pure"
> agility.
> OTOH I'd think the fact that the opponent is using sword-and-shield
> is enough to allow the full value of Close Combat: Sword and Shield
> as an augment.
Hmmm, interesting view. The augment is from being able to bring your skill and knowledge to bear. So you aren't penalized for not having the proper equipment except to not have the equipment.
>I'm currently thinking that in an extended contest, I'd have no
> >problems with him using
> >Agile at full, augmented by sword and shield (with improv modifier)
> >to resist the
> >opponent's attack, but I'm not convinced he gets to use it actively
> >on his round. (I'm
> >assuming his goal is to hurt his opponent here, not get past or
> >escape from him.)
>
> I'd definitely agree with that. Attacking would get a hefty improv
modifier.
I'd think so.
LC
>
Powered by hypermail