> > > The point remains. You are still attempting more than the
> > > usual number of effects in an exchange.
>
> Destruction of sword - loss of edges and augments involving
> the sword.
>
> Destruction of shield - loss of edges and augments involving
> the shield.
This is, in my mind, not how Augmentation works. This IS how the feats would work if used stand-alone. Augmentation, in my mind, does NOT produce all-or-nothing effects, it simply enhances the ability it's placed on. Therefore, the shield MIGHT shatter, but if it did, it would be chiefly as a result of the Close Combat skill, only augmented (not replaced) by the feat.
> >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.
Well, the intent wasn't stated, just the action, but I take your point (so to speak...).
> >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.
There's where we differ in opinion. I see FEATS used stand-alone as specific, AUGMENTS are just enhancements on other abilities - the original ability is still the specific one.
> 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 you are treating augments as all-or-nothing actions, I would agree. I simply wouldn't treat them that way.
> >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.
I don't see how these two compare to two Bladesharps, however.
> >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.
Treating augments this way, I would agree. But I'm not sure I would allow three feats used in this all-or-nothing manner at once.
> >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
that's true, and in the manner you describe I would agree. Like I said, a major part of the problem to my understanding was your use of the term 'action', which I took to mean an Action in game mechanics terms. Well, you still might, but you're allowing multiple actions in one.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail