> I'd allow a player to step into
> another's place, but only if the original target agreed
> I've never seen anyone playing HQ min-max. Why would you?
> When losing is at least, if not more fun, than winning?
I remember very clearly one case of my character stepping in to "take the brunt" of a combat-based attack - and I know Rob does, as well, and no doubt any other of the players who were on the list. It was a RHQN scenario - I won't say which one for fear of spoilers. My character's husband, a warrior, was about to be attacked by Something Very Nasty, perhaps a mastery or more beyond him in CC. So she threw herself in the way. Never mind augmenting, she just used her "love husband" ability, a few more personality augments, and took the brunt for him. And yes, she died. Min-max. Yeah.... And it comes in my top 10 "roleplaying moments I will remember", so yes, it was fun.
> ><If the average player can
> >drum up a +5 augment ... we're looking at a
> >shift of +17 (more if you add in for group combat) which is
> at least an
> >extra mastery *on every challenge*. Yikes!
> You guys were doing way more than that when you teamed up.
>... about +30, IIRC.
> Which put them just about at parity. Which was hella-cool,
Yes, it's good to be able to do this from time to time. Anyone else from the Swords group following this list at present? Remember when we had six Swords of Humakt, plus multiple followers each, all carefully stacking augments? Because the challenge in question was the final station of a HQ, and we had a dragon to kill. According to the myth, with one blow. Yes, we narrated every augment, and yes, it died. And we *needed* those five masteries, and the hero-point, and the external support, and bidding every AP we had. But there's no way we'd do that for every combat.
(Come to think of it, the Chronicles are on-line for that bit)
That section's an extended contest, the final stacking is at the end.
Powered by hypermail