Tim Ellis:
> I'm with Nick on this one. I don't see the need for new rules, as I
> think in most cases the existing rules work well, and that many of
> the cases where they don't are cases that are more theoretical than
> practical.
You agree with Nick that Bryan's solution is a good fix, or you still don't see the problem in the first place?
If what people dislike about Greg's "rumoured" rule change is that it sets an immutable "tariff" for certain sorts of abilities, whereas Bryan's method is a little more flexible, I can see the attraction of that, but I still feel Bryan's construction arises from an extremely tortuous reading of the rules, so the least such guidelines should do IMO is to say, "charge 'em some makey-up amount of extra HP because of the generality of the ability", rather than trying to construct special cases around "knowledge skills" and "inherent abilities", which seems to me both highly problematic and expressly "simulationalist".
> (OK if you have Close Combat 19w2 (Fencing foil) then you
> can get Close Combat (Sumo Wrestling) at the same level for only a HP
> or two - but in practice, why would you when for the same cost you
> can get Close Combat 20w2?
If you have a bout with Yokazuna Chiyonofuji in the morning, I know which one seems the optimal choice...
If Close Combat _isn't_ intended to be this broad, then I'd be at least moderately happier than at present if HW2 said so, more or less explicitly. This is something Greg brough up specifically that he wanted to fix. (i.e., essentially the situation Nick lampooned as "change Close Combat [fryd] to Heortling Close Combat [fyrd]".)
Powered by hypermail