> Already tasted and, err, found to be unpalatable by some, as part
> of the dread 'Broad abilities' thread, if you cast your mind back.
I can and do. Your contribution to that thread is indeed a fine thing, and one I very much sympathise with, but it wasn't exactly what I'd call "informal" or "assigned on the fly". I think this is because it was willy-nilly hitched to the unsavoury and badly thought out "broad abilities" concept for making clean rules clunkier.
For the record, I agree completely with your contention that "For such abilities to really work, narrow abilities must have a bonus, and the narrower the ability, the greater the bonus."
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail