>David Cake:
>> If you want to put an optional rule set into the main rules
>> so people can choose to use it, fine but silly - might as well put
>> them on a web page. But I want the choice to keep the published rules
>> working properly.
>
>Aside for the unevidenced, ludicrous overstatement that this represents,
>it also ignores the obvious "counter-fix" if you really _hate_ the
>idea of broad abilities in all their forms (oops, apart from affinities,
>and grimoires -- never mind), which is simply to as a narrator to declare
>all proposed abilities either "narrow", or disallowed outright, as at
>present.
Well, this is arguing against the proposition that Close Combat should be declared "broad" in the rules, and all the rules then organised on that basis. Which is, admittedly, probably a straw man proposition. I don't think anyone is really proposing such a worst case proposal.
The mere existence of the broad ability concept, I have no problem with. Can't think of a single ability offhand that I would want to work that way, other than a couple of magic ones that already do, but I don't have a problem with that. Maybe I will think of some in the months leading up to its release.
Cheers Daivd
Powered by hypermail