> I hope it was "yes, but.."?
Often, but not always. When my assassin wanted to secrete poisons from her hands, that was a "Yes, but that means you were marked with natural magic as a child and so even more people had plans for you and have their eye on you."
But when the City Guard wanted to have a magic spell that was taught to all city guards, a song you whistle while walking the walls to calm the spirits and ghosts of all the dead that have fought and died on them, that was just "yes".
> I like the "take AP as wounds" idea for this. Or altering target numbers if
> the protagonist is willing to take "injuries" while doing it.
Except the take AP as wounds thing only drops small hurts on people.
> "I run through the burning house to rescue the princess" is harder than "I
> run through the burning house ignoring the way my clothes and skin are
> smoldering". Lower TN, but accept a -1 thereafter.
See, now that's a nice idea and one I should use.
> Sometimes there are default assumptions made by the GM that have to be
> questioned - you tend to assume that the "and I do this while avoiding
> injury in so far as possible" is just unspoken. It may not even be intended
> at all.
I have done this one. I have also allowed instead of the AP trade, an unrelated action that is purely an attack to wound kind of thing. (I use this sparingly.) I usually reserve this for something like magic, but you can try to reduce down an ability or power by targeting it in an unrelated action.
LC
Powered by hypermail