Re: Re: Ability advancement rate

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:09:19 +0000


wulfcorbett wrote:
...
> This is true, but a viable alternative is to just have a couple of
> abilities at REALLY high level and either improvise or rely on
> someone else in the group. The former is pretty dubious, but the
> latter is, really, rather realistic. What you could end up with is an
> archetypical fighter, a magic user, erm... aah...

The improvising method is, as you say, not viable. The Narrator can justly rule that a suggested improvisation requires a massive improvisation penalty.

Relying on others in the group is more of a problem. I still think a character needs several abilities, even if they are specializing in one 'class'. A warrior needs more than Close Combat. Also, the opposition can choose to pick on the weakest player characters.

That said, we have started to come across this problem. It is particularly acute if the players begin to rely on their Allies or Followers filling the gaps, as a player can buy these for 1 HP each. In the early stages of our campaign, we allowed use of the abilities of follower's in contests. For example, a whimpering Lhankor Mhy with a bodyguard follower could use the Close Combat ability of the follower in a combat. We have decided that this was a mistake; we now strictly enforce a rule that (for extended contests) follower abilities are useful only for increasing your AP totals. Allies (when present) act as independent NPCs or as 'super followers', and so their abilities can also not be directly used.

> Our group is definitely ignoring magic. It's not been a problem
> either, magic is only really ever used for augments. It costs too
> much to bother with raising Affinities if you can do much the same
> with mundane skills (which you CAN if you only ever use magic to
> augment - you can buy the mundane skill up instead).

Magic really spices up our contests. I recommend using Feats to do 'impossible' things (e.g. Run on Treetops). Try attacking using one of these Feats. Argue that Close Combat is not a suitable defence against them.

...
> but what would actually happen
> would be the ENTIRE GROUP would reach this state. In our group, thats
> 6-8 Harreks...

Harrek has allies and enemies of comparable power, so I don't see why that's a problem.

Powered by hypermail