Re: Re: HPs and normal abilities house rule.

From: Thom Baguley <t.s.baguley_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:03:15 +0100

>That sounds fine to me as a principle: it's like what we do. As other
>posters have commented, the major issue arises when a long-term magic
>enhancement is rendered irrelevant for use in simple contests, or
>when an extended contest is required by the roolz (e.g. Tapping,
>hsunchen totems providing APs, etc.) in a situation where you'd
>otherwise have used a simple resolution.

Yes, but in practice it hasn't arisen for my game. If its important we'd use an extended contest. In a few cases we've used extended contests (to break the veil etc.) to take advantages of big edges. If the edges are small, why bother?

I'd use the 2:1 conversion as a last resort (not yet needed).

>> In the ^20 edge example, I might well use a simple contest and
>> alter the result to take account of the edge.
>
>But not the outcome, eh? I think that's where we differ. I'd say it's
>more likely the side with the ^20 edge will get a victory; you'd say
>they'll suffer less if they are defeated (but they are no less likely
>to be defeated just because they are wearing invulnerable armour).
>Correct?
>
>Cheers, Nick

No. I'd happily alter the outcome to make narrative sense. If the high edge side really were invincible (e.g., the sans edge side couldn't touch them with magic and so on) I wouldn't go past the initial clash. At the point the opposition would flee or retreat. I probably wouldn't use any contest mechanic.

If the ^20 edge came from a "turn blow" feat they might be vulnerable to all sorts of other factors (lightning, trampling by triceratops, scary bagpipe music and so on).

Thom