HW abilities

From: Benedict Adamson <ben_at_cd.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:40:05 +0100


I have comments about the HeroWars resolution rules.

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