>> Sure, you can. HW:RiG p. 133-4 says:
>>
>> "Abilities may only be augmented by only one mundane ability, and
>> only once per feat, but can be increased by several different feats. That is,
>> a *Swordfighting* abilty may be augmented by *Great Strength* or *Ferocity*,
>> but not both; and by many different feats, but not by the same feat twice."
>
> I suspect that this may change.
Indeed it should, else the game is unbalanced in favour of theists!
>> Thus the only limits to a theist's augmentations to, say, *Close
>> Combat* are his imagination and the time at his disposition because he can
>> always invent feats by using a relevant affinity (*Combat* for ex.) with
>> improvisational modifiers! For theists even the sky is not a limit...
>
> No. One cannot make iterative augmentations.
Fine, where does it say so in the rules. If I understand you well, an OA worshipper cannot use Flickering Blade, Swordhelp and Leaping Shield at the same time to augment his Sword & Shield ability. This is exactly contrary to the above quoted passage of the rules...
> And any narrator is quite within his rights to say 'no, that's too similar to
> an augment you already have in effect' -- and that is also clearly stated in
> the rules.
Where in the rules? Besides that's too easy an answer, Jeff. As a narrator yourself, which of the 9 feats I gave Vigga-Varna would *you* disallow and which ones would you allow and why. Thanks in advance for your answer! :o) (And yes, I'm serious.)
>> She could go on, but her slightly anxious narrator announces that
>> the ennemies are arriving in the kill zone. She begins the ambush with a
>> very respectable 13W to *Spear and Shield*. Not doubt she will have no
>> problem improvising further *Feats* if need be! She will have to use
>> *Unrelated Actions* to do so, but if the fight is particularly tough it might
>> be worthwhile...
>
> This long endlessly recursive addition of feats is the exact reason
> for the comment.
Sorry, I don't understand: what "comment"?
> And the narrator can always say 'no.'
Gee, how very helpful, Jeff! After all these years campaigning in Glorantha with RQ, my players will simply love it when I tell them that Narrator Fiat is the name of the game now... Thanks a lot, Jeff! :o(
>> Christoph, mini-maxing in Switzerland
>
> Minmaxing. Precisely the point.
Yes and no. I'm trying to push the rules to their limit to see if they are robust enough to withstand the onslaught of my players. And I prefer hard and fast rules to improvising on the spot. (Improvising the scenarios is fine with me, but I need coherent rules to back me up. That's just me, it's a personal matter.)
Christoph, liking the HW rules in Switzerland but I have my reservations! :o) ;o) :o)
Powered by hypermail