> I suppose if you are talking minimax, then that's perfectly true
> (although I'd say that a Yinkini *ought* not be the combat-monster
> of choice),
Of course not. But depending on play group, you may be expected to be a competent fighter no matter what else you are--yes, some of us play with people who make no apologies about being combat monsters. So yes, I unabashedly minimax combat competence, so that I have scope left over to still do neat things. I thought the concept of not carrying a melee weapon or wearing armor, but being OK-ish in a fight because of magic that would also let you do cool non combat things seemed pretty cool.
> but I must say that of all the characters I have created
> for myself in HW/HQ, only one ever put his main emphasis on combat -
I don't think I've ever created one with an emphasis on combat, but, well, I'm used to groups that focussed on combat, so you just didn't totally ignore combat. Personally I like to design heroes with a built in conflict between aspects of the character (as Jeff can attest from the bit of gaming I did with him, this conflict sometimes caused characters to self-destruct in spectacular ways....), so to develop both of those, without ignoring combat....eh, it can be a challenge. So yah, I notice things that limit the ways that you can be good at combat.
Again, not trying at all to dis the new rules. They rock, and there will always be trade offs, and these are entirely reasonable ones. But I thought the changes were worth noting.
--Bryan
Powered by hypermail