In the demo game, we could
choose almost any ability to defend against an `attack'. For example, an NPC
defended in combat with her `hatred'. Now, I thought that was MGF, but could
become tedious. When attacked by a sword, being `very good' at dodging is much
more useful than being `very good' at hating. If I play a Humakti swordsman
hero (say), when that sword is swinging, only competant warriors should have
any chance against me. In a melee, that Humakti should sweep the field against
non-combat heroes. For it to be otherwise robs the character of their
speciality. But, using the demo rules, a Humakti hero has no
melee advantage over other heros, since most heroes will have SOME ability
they can use defensively. Ingenous uses of irrelevant abilities should
be better than nothing, but not as good as a relevant ability.
Do the full rules have modifiers for the relevance of abilities in a
situation?
A related question is, are abilities with restrictive utility `cheaper' to
`buy'
(I'm thinking of Champions here)? Are characters with a narrow
repetoire better in that repetoire: would a starting (2D) Humakt Death Lord
with
only sword skill be better at fencing than a starting Orlanth Wind Lord with
sword skill, teleportation and lightning bolts?
In the demo rules, the outcome of a combat did not depend on the abilities
used.
This would make attacking someone with a Sever Spirit no different from
atttacking with an axe. In Runequest, the Sever Spirit might kill the defender
instantly, or have no effect at all, and the axe could damage the defender's
weapon or remove the defender's limbs. In the full rules, do the consequences
of a resolution depend on the abilities used?
Powered by hypermail