Makes sense to me! Perhaps with an improv penalty, because to be
effective the fire would have to incinerate the arrows almost
instantly, but the idea is sound.
>
> My point being that the two abilities are not really direct
counters
> to each other, such as Archery vs Dodge, but under the concept of
> attaining or preventing the 'goal' they are.
Sure. Works for me. The trick is deciding how appropriate it is,
and how much of a penalty you get in the situation. Otherwise you
could potentially get some pretty silly uses of the heroe's best
abilities.
>
>
> 2) The other aspect of this is the use of 'active' magic in a
> defensive role. If you consider an action to be an exchange then
> both sides could fire at each other... I shoot him with arrows vs I
> shoot him with arrows, OR I cast "Burn his body to a cinder" at
him,
> I reply by casting "Stop his heart from beating"... the exchange
and
> rolls would merely represent which one got their effect out first?
> Both actions are "attacking".
>
I think I would penalize "stop his heart from beating" quite
strongly, as it is unlikely to be disabling fast enough to disrupt
his spell....although it might surprise him enough to make his mess
up his casting. However I think the Orlanthi feat of "Snatch Breath"
makes a great defensive "active" magic against spells--you can't
generally cast spells without talking (per the HQ rules), so if you
see someone starting a spell that you want to stop, snatching their
breath away before they can complete it sounds like a perfectly fine
defense.
> Or am I pushing this too far?
I think it is up to each narrator to decide how far they want this sort of thing to go in their game. But it is worth thinking about a bit, so you can hand out penalties appropriately on a consistent basis. Odds on your players will accept it however you call it, so long as you are consistent. But personally, I'd vote for allowing a lot of creativity, as I think that is fun.
--Bryan
Powered by hypermail