>No, not really.
Yes, really.
>He's reducing his opponent's AP.
Destruction of sword - loss of edges and augments involving the sword.
Destruction of shield - loss of edges and augments involving the shield.
If Mr Mook is any good (i.e. he has augmented himself with weapons magic) then I would rate the destruction of weapon and shield to be narratively significant. If he's little better than a trollkin, I wouldn't bother about them.
> > >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 you are not distinguishing between the intent and the result of the action. The situation is more likely to arise if the actor says "I thrust at him with my spear" and overwhelmingly defeats the other guy who was using the spear in defense in the exchange.
> > 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?
In some cases, those augments are for specific purposes. I don't see why they should be allowable for other purposes.
>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.
I have no problem with the shield being whittled down over several exchanges. What I do have a problem is with the shield and the sword and the head all being whittled down at the same time over separate exchanges. I feel that only one of three should apply in any one exchange.
>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'?
No. I simply disallow those feats to combine for the same reason that in Runequest, one couldn't have two bladesharps on the same weapon.
>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'?
The second is my preference.
>and I wouldn't allow 3 rolls during one Action,
Why not? It is possible for the sword to shatter, the shield to break, but Mr Mook's neck remains intact.
> > 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?
Attacking multiple targets is also a high-risk activity yet it is dealt with by a separate penalties rather than a mandated higher-AP bid. Use what you will but I feel the penalties apply.
>Splitting up
>each combination move into simple actions reduces the fastest, most
>skilled, swordsman to the speed of the slowest.
I've never suggested anything of the kind. What I did confine myself to was narratively significant actions and said as much in the examples of the three ropes.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail