I'm trying to find out if there's some misinterpretation here due to terminology...
> The point remains. You are still attempting more than the
> usual number of effects in an exchange.
No, not really. He's reducing his opponent's AP. HOW he does so is a matter of narrative.
> >How about a single spear thrust that punched through a
> >shield and impaled someone in the guts?
>
> Two separate actions. Hence most people take the easier course
> of avoiding the shield and just impale somebody in the guts.
Here's the crux. If this was RQ, that would simply be a matter of an attack that hit, exceeded the AP of the shield plus armour, then damaged the character. Why do you consider it different in HW?
> Because what is being debated is his skill through the entire
> duel and not the single round.
But aren't Augments as much an indication of the character's POTENTIAL as his actions? He is CAPABLE of shield breaking, he can ATTEMPT to do so on every attack. Clearly he can realistically only really do so once (unless the opponent has two shields...), but unless you're being very literal minded the feat could be used to 'whittle down' the shield every attack. Getting past a shield isn't a separate action from an attack. Shattering a sword isn't either most of the time, it's just an effect of the clash of weapons (I've seen a few swords shatter due to poor metal, and every one was on an attack or parry where the other weapon proved superior). Being magically better at creating these effects is simply a bonus, not a separate attack. If a character used 'Burst of Speed' as well as some weapon Augment to move faster in a combat, would you require two Actions for 'move around' and 'attack'?
> And how would you describe that the narrative description
> was inappropriate? What's to stop a Humakti from doing it
> to one guy and then stepping up to the next and repeating
> the maneuver?
>
> > > I never claimed it was a multiple attack, I simply counted
> > > three distinct actions.
Now, are you saying 'You have to split the action up over three Actions, and allow your Opponent two Actions between them', or 'You have to make three Ability rolls in this Action'? I cannot see the point of splitting up a single fluid move over a total (both sides) of 5 Actions, and I wouldn't allow 3 rolls during one Action, but those seem to be the possibilities.
> But I wasn't talking about simulating armed or unarmed combat,
> I was talking about describing it _narratively_.
But I thought the whole point of high-AP bids was to numerically represent the risk and complexity of extreme skill use? Splitting up each combination move into simple actions reduces the fastest, most skilled, swordsman to the speed of the slowest. Adding magical enhancement to a mundane (if extreme) action doesn't make it any more complex, just more powerful.
Mind you, I STILL don't like the idea of unlimited Augments...
Wulf
Powered by hypermail