Yes. Now, has anyone been saying '5 month complex preparations shouldn't grant a huge bonus'?
No. Has anyone but you been implying that multiple month complexterrorist plots of global importance should be represented by a single extended contest, and we should determine the rules for normal close combat based on this?
No.
> If you want a 5-minute preparation ambush, then almost any
>convenience store robbery or street mugging would qualify.
Yes. And the rules cope quite well with those without bringing the issue of multiple augments from a single affinity into it.
> > augmenting - who was it you were accusing of hyperbole?
>
>Nick Brooke. :-)
Yes - you, ah, seem to have a beam there.
>
>> Also, where any of these people multiply using their
>> affinities? And thats not as silly as trivial an issue as it appears.
>> We are not talking about the overall effect of well prepared ambush
>> in general - we are talking about the specific effect of multiple
>> augments from an affinity in ambush. Confusing the two is pointless.
>
>Whether one uses closely-related skills or non-related skills, the end
>result is the same.
And affinities aren't closely related skills, they are the same skill.
> Is "Obtain fake ID", "Learn to fly big honkin' plane",
>and "Hate so bad you're willing to die" all part of the "Terrorist"
>affinity?
No. They are not part of any affinity. They are separately learned abilities. What you areadvocating here is that we remove the restriction on multiple augments from mundane skills, in order to simply any arbitrarily complex action as a single extended contest. This is both silly, and beside the point at issue, which is affinities.
> I could certainly make a case for learning them as feats inside
>the affinity, then using them in concert to steal a plane (yes, I know that
>they are really non-magical skills, but we don't have affinities in the real
>world).
In Glorantha, non-magical skills don't get to be part of affinities either. Needless obfuscation.
>
>> >We *are* talking about someone who knows what's coming (or is planning on
>> >making it happen), vrs. someone who doesn't have a clue. Ambushes
>*should*
>> >be deadly, and are a great way to overcome a discrepency in power. Anyone
>> >caught "cold" by an ambush (whether it is physical combat, or a law case,
>or
>> >someone stealing your girl) should have a much harder time winning than
>the
>> >ambusher.
>>
>> In HW, +5 or so is 'a much harder time'. +10 is crippling. +w
>> is devastating.
>> Now, do I think someone who sets an ambush should get a
>> decent bonus. +5 to +10 is about right for most cases. I don't think
>> this should be much huger if the ambusher happens to be a devotee.
>
>I assume, then, that you oppose the "Home tula advantage" rule in BA 54,
>that gives a average +18 on automatic (not rolled-for) augments. That's
>before *any* personal magical augments are included.
You misread them. Its about +5 or +10 (depending on wyter blessings) in automatic augments, another +3 or so on attempts specifically to ambush or evade pursuit, and perhaps a +5 bonus on awareness abilities.
But anyway - I think +18 would be a little high, but a wyter is something carefully set up over decades at least, so the actual +10 seems fine. A +3 for knowledge of local terrain seems about right. I certainly think a wyter bonus of +10 or so should be worth more than the bonus for 3 rounds extra preparation.
But again - your debate tactic here seems to be comparing things that are only minimally alike. The home advantage isn't an ambush rule. It reflects a wyter, not a few rounds preparation. Its not an affinity.
>
>> >I'd have a hard time believing that all my efforts to prepare were
>> >for naught, because "it doesn't feel right" that an ambusher can beat his
>> >victim. That's the whole reason for ambushes!
>>
>> No, it doesn't feel right that the important element in an
>> ambush is that it gives you the opportunity to multiply augment.
>
>But it doesn't, not any more than any other contest.
>
>Let me ask this: Would you disallow a second augment from the same affinity
>if it were rolled in the middle of combat? Frex: Harry the Hu-the-Sword
>devotee starts a contest using "Close Combat". He uses his first action to
>roll for an augment using "Cut Deep". The several rounds later he rolls for
>an augment using "Great Blow". They are both in his "Sword Combat" affinity.
I'd probably pass it as an edge augment. Double dipping thus is bad for game balance always, but edges are vastly less so.
> > The ambush should be effective because its an ambush,
> > regardless of whether you are a devotee.
>
>Being a devotee simply makes it more successful.
And that is the point we are arguing about - should being a devotee make ambushes vastly more devastating? You haven't really addressed that point at all.
[example based on assumption I disagree with snipped]
>
>> Put it this way - if it feels right that a well prepared
>> ambush should be devastating, then it should be devastating when
>> carried out by someone with no affinities at all. Which means that
>> multiple augments from affinities is not the effect you are looking
>> for.
>
>Augments make it more likely to succeed fully.
Augments overshadow the effect you are trying to simulate.
> Whether they all come from
>the same affinity or from different ones, what's the difference?
Game balance. Consistency. Game balance is terribly easy to maintain in HW. Equalabilities are equal. Why the desperate urge to mess with it, in order to get an effect not seen in the RW or Gloranthan fiction but only suggested by the game mechanics?
> Some
>activities simply don't make sense unless multiple augments are allowed from
>the same affinity - Pella's Pottery affinity and Lhankor Knowing's Law
>Affinity come to mind, since I used them earlier.
If you are going to abstract everything to a single contest, you should also be abstracting away the details of different feats. Essentially, this desire to get to use every feat is having it both ways - abstracting away the level of detail of the contest for convenience, then adding the detail (three separate augments) for advantage. If you want to use all the feats of your Pella devotee, play the contest in more detail - specify more details about the pot, and then it will become obvious whether Glaze Colour or Pattern Firing is relevant. Play the law case out with more than a single contest, and Interrogate Witness and Impress Jurors will each be relevant at different times. But if you are going to play these things out at the level of detail of a single contest, then you don't need the detail of multiple augments from the same ability either. I don't get the advantage of weapon differences in a simple contest either, and that's not a problem either.
And lets look at the Pella example from game balance a little. The situations where you are making pottery are seldom such that you won't get to cast as many feats as you like before hand. So, we get a situation where gaining a new feat is a better idea than actually increasing her affinity OR her native ability (1HP for a new feat gets more than a +1 augment most of the time). How is that a good idea for the game?
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail