>>However, we are considering changing things a bit by making
>>meta-skills cost as much as Affinities to improve
>I can well imagine why you are looking at this change, Close Combat
>feels too cheap - what player isn't going to invest 1 hero point here
>per scenario given the opportunity (Answer: an extreme purist role-
>player, Orlanth bless them)
Well, our lot seemed happy with the idea, but I think it's common sense rather than RPG purity that swayed them...
>There is a balance problem to such a change though - you have to give
>some incentive to players who concentrate on one weapon skill to invest
>in the broad combat skill else what I guess the rationale behind the
>Close Combat group falls apart.
Well, the incentive COULD be (have to discuss it with the group and co-Narrator - you reading this Andy?) that Affinities (and, in my proposal, meta-skills) can only be improved by one point at a time, while individual weapons/Feats could be improved by up to +4. Plus...
>You might investigate some requirement that no weapon bonus over Close
>Combat may be more than that Close Combat value
I was thinking of no more than +5 - the Improvisation Penalty I use for unknown CC techniques (I think -3 is too small and insignificant). So you'll never be worse with a known technique than the improv from your best. Other techniques would still be -5 from CC. I think a 5-point difference between best and other known weapons is about right. In re-enactment I trained in sword & shield, axe & shield, and sword & axe. I can use a spear, but not too well.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail