Re: Actual Rules Question!

From: Steve Lieb <styopa_at_...>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:29:11 -0800

> > I simply can't see a system where the player is SEEKING combat
> > (ostensibly risking life & limb) because the net result will leave
> them
> > almost certainly more powerful than before.
> Sounds exactly like D&D (extra experience gain) or RuneQuest (weapons
> checks) to me.

I mean in an immediate sense. I challenge you to find ANYONE who engaged in a RQ3 melee with, oh, lets say 10 underlings, coming out of THAT COMBAT better off than they started...?

Sure, eventually (assuming they survive) they'd improve with checks, etc. But I mean at a shorter timescale.
> Not at all. The good guys deal with the henchmen at the gate. By the
> time they rush up the tower to confront the big bad guy, it's a new
> contest, and they start at their normal APs. (Plus, they may have used
> a Hero Point or two already and be weaker that way.)

Granted your example would work that way, but I happened to be thinking about specifically going against a vampire with a pack of wolves, or a Dark Troll here with a band of trollkin fodder - i.e. a continuing combat. If he wades in to beat on you as you are finishing the henchlings, you probably have a TON of AP - he's better off waiting and engaging you later when your AP has re-set. That seems counterintuitive.

Of course, this is looking at the default rules. I have to read the latest to understand the points people have made about AP transfers not being as common.

Powered by hypermail