>Let's say I want to create a character whose main characteristic
>(eh !) is to be cunning. So after saying it in the desc ("He's a
>cunning character without scruples"), I add a bit of flavour by
>saying for instance than he "has learned to read people's attitudes"
>or "anticipate troubles".
>
>Now, when allocating points, if I put "Cunning" as the main trait at
>5W, what is the point of even listing the more specialized
>keywords ? After all, if I also list "anticipate trouble : 13" my
>char will be better off by using the general trait "Cunning" even
>with a big (up to 12) improvisational modifier. Or does one have to
>use the narrow trait, and the general one is only used to augment
>it ?
You COULD say that Cunning was a general ability for augmentation only (more importantly, your referee could), but the RULES don't. I'd allow it while the ability is well-roleplayed. I have a character with 'Alert 5W' which comes close to the same idea. However, as referee, I MIGHT (haven't had to decide for real) say that the specific Anticipate Trouble MUST be the basic ability in specific trouble-anticipating situations. Now, whether I'd allow you to augment Cunning with Anticipate Trouble in a more general situation... yes, probably. After creating and playing a number of characters, I'd be more worried about so many similarly-used abilities diluting my HP when I try to raise them...
>I realize this might be already answered in the rules, but I'm not
>sure where.
Not yet it isn't, but there is a threat that HQ might introduce higher costs to improve 'general' or 'wide' abilities.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail