> > 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.
>The entire combat could have been resolved using a simple contest.
I don't think the Humakti would have been bothering with feats if he was attacking an opponent in simple contest.
>In extended contest, in effect, consists of a series of simple
>contests (to determine AP changes).
There's other changes in an extended contest that can happen besides changes to a persons AP. If a humakti had a humongous truesword feat on and the sword got stolen by a Sairdite, then that's a significant effect.
>So why shouldn't each 'attack' in
>an extended contest represent several actions?
Nothing. I'm stating they shouldn't _if_ they are narratively significant.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail