>Why learn to use a cleaver in combat the first place, if according to
>Peter and several others, it only grants a few measly edge points which
>soon become inconsequential?
Incorrect. My actual reason was that there was little else for him to fight with at the time. I then followed it up with a point about how you shouldn't rely on mechanics to guide a hero's actions but rather narrative and descriptive details.
>Why learn dual sword wield? To look "cool" or
>intimidating? Doubtful. Realistically, there would be more to it than that.
Just why did your player choose to have a two sword fighter? Was he somehow privy to the complex rules that you were going to draw up? Or that he just thought that being a fighter with two swords was cool and interesting? Trying to manufacture a "realistic" mechanical reason for him to fight in such a way is not worth it.
>What I was asking for from the beginning was an example of how others
>might modify the edges/skill bonuses and how players might handle the
>skill differently from other types of combat. When several stated that it
>would be no different, I disagreed and continue to disagree.
Nobody stated that it will be no different. What was pointed out to you was that 1) it's unwise to make such edges a permanent feature of play, 2) you would be much better off focusing on the descriptive side of fighting with two swords and 3) any differences disappear at high skill levels (which for some reason you choose to sneer at, labelling it playing superheroes).
>However, it is evident that the game mechanics differentiate between
>the use of a shield and the lack of a shield in combat.
But not by much and at high skill levels, the differentiation becomes insignificant so as not to be worth bothering about in most cases. It might surprise you to learn that originally these particular rules were intended to be optional.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail