"suitable skill" is determined by GM. Our GM would not consider combat a suitable skill to use when you are trying to close the range to an archer but YG_W_V.
> And no, in combat, does not start a new contest, one simply starts to
> use different skills.
Your interpretation differs from ours but that is perfectly okay.
On an aside, we have never seen a situation where the party is unable to immediatly respond to a ranged attack. Even our Humakti have "Shout of Fear" they can use against an archer at range.
> > It depends on the contest. We were just talking a few posts ago
> > foot races being resolved with contests. This is a race, can you
> > close before getting killed.
> In this case, we are talking about players attempting to close with
> archers. Seems pretty simple to me.
It is simple but we have different ways of resolving it.
> > If you are looking at just charging resolutely into combat ignoring
> > arrows then use the optional wounding rule. If the archers get a
> > success and the final result (after considering armour) is 7 AP
> > the target then inflict a wound (-1 penalty on all actions until
> > healed). IMO you would still use the target's run/dodge/skinny/ etc
> > skill to oppose the archery skill.
> Mmm. The question was, which I am still hoping to actually convey,
> that one player is thinking he should be able to use his ungodly high
> Sheld and (weapon) skill as he tries to hide behind his sheild while
> advancing solidly.
> I'm figuring this is alright, but should be at a severe penalty.
What about using his close combat to augment his armour rank? Would that work? He would not be using the skill to directly oppose the archery but he would be able to use his skill with the shield to boost his protection.
> > I know that is what you were asking. I was telling you how we
> > that situation. 5 pcs face off with 5 npcs = 5 seperate extended
> > contests. If there are 15 npcs, then each time the pcs fight a new
> > it is a new extended contest starting from scratch again.
> What happens if someone changes opponents? Battles are not fixed
> chesspieces in my experience.
I don't know the answer to that one, this has never happened in our gaming.
> I've been using the wound rule quite happily. Actually, We've been
> having the victim lose the APs but the Victor doesn't get the transfer
> -- it seems more logical that way.
Powered by hypermail