> Would it be possible to augment your own skills by successfully rolling
> against your opponent's weaknesses? If the Hero knew about the Villain's
> personality traits in advance, he could take an unrelated action in an
> extended contest to roll against the Villain's Overconfident trait.
I don't think you should ever be rolling someone else's abilities... But your overall idea seems good, maybe someone can come up with a better rules implementation.
Jonas wrote
> I still
> had the preview of the rules in mind, where it says: "Unless otherwise
> indicated, theistic feats are augmentations, sorcery spells give edges
> and spirits loan APs". But in the published rules this restriction is
> nowhere to be found, so my argument falls flat. Probably for the best, it
> was just a RQ holdover anyway... ;-)
No, there were various attempts made during development to distinguish the magic systems in some way. I think this was deleted from the final rules, but it seems perfectly plausible to restore it, at least as a default (i.e. if you don't know what a feat does, it gives a bonus, if you don't know what a spell does, it gives an edge).
Guy wrote
> last night i was talking with Nick and he mentioned that sorcerors
> seem utterly blank as characters. after some reflection i think he
> is totally right - one instinctively knows what a weaponthane should
> be like (Boastfull Challenge 17+), a Lawspeaker (Impressive Beard
> 1W+) or even a Lunar Governor (Oppress Natives 5W2+).
Well, we haven't seen any cultural writeups for them the way we have for Orlanthi...
And I can say that in our Jrusteli game, the sorcerers didn't seem very blank -- the Corrupt ability is burned into my mind for one, and the medical researcher (aka vivisectionist) was Jovial.
David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail