We have rules for embodying your god, etc. They are far less effective that this particular tactic can be.
And its not the god, its the character - remember, people can make up their own feats from improvisation.
>> Put it this way - when heroes clash, do you really think the
>> contest should be determined by which one gets an extra round of
>One extra round of augmentation would probably only be about +10
>which might tip the balance but is not overwhelming given the cost of
>getting affinities that high.
This shows a bit of a misunderstanding - +10 is just as important a difference, no matter HOW high the abilities are.
>When heroes clash I think the one who best embodies their god through
>their magic should probably win, which in terms of game mechanics may
>mean the one with the most augments but in narrative terms means the
>one who has performed the better Arming of $DEITY ritual.
No, in narrative terms the Arming of $DEITY ritual is represented by the Arming of $DEITY ritual. I know this seems like a banal observation, but its not - the effect you are talking about IS already in the game system, and it works very differently.
> All other
>things being equal then the one who embodies the most warlike god
should have the decisive advantage in a straight clash of arms
HW isn't always a straight clash of arms. The rules need to work for all situations.
>At these levels the magic is becoming more important than the mundane
>skill, given the number of HP spent (or heroquests performed) to have
>access to that magic I don't happen to think that this is unbalancing.
The problem is that the result is out of line from the number of HPs spent - in particular, it depends as much as rounds of preparation.
I want the value of an ability to be based on the level of an ability. Is that so shocking?
Powered by hypermail