Hrm. I don't have the books with me, but I seem to recall that the keyword skills lists were not intended to be exhaustive--they included anything you might need to know as part of that occupation. But that's easier to justify with an obscure skill that writers might have forgotten (e.g. "keep armor in good repair") than an established skill with obvious in-game relevance ("first aid").
As a gut feeling--I'd say if a particular "Warrior" keyword includes "first aid", that means that in that culture/region/regiment, first aid is formally considered something a warrior ought to know how to do, and they make sure you know it. ("No, Arius, we're not taking you on the raid until you learn how to splint a broken bone, dammit!") If it isn't listed, despite being obviously relevant, that means it isn't formally part of the requirements--but it's still something very useful, and something you'd probably pick up just from day-to-day life. So give it a small improvisational penalty (maybe -5). No, a Heortling warrior isn't *expected* to know first aid, and you wouldn't think less of one for not knowing it. But you wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that grizzled old warrior Hrothgar knows a lot about binding wounds and fighting infection.
> Perhaps more helpfully, I seem to remember being told that using a
> skill
> as a defence does not count as "active", even if it's the primary
> skill
> being used. Is that right, and does it help?
I think that could help, especially with the "Talk to Ancestors". You could use it if you're attacked by your own ancestors (divine retribution for some sin), or if you're under any kind of magical attack while on your tula (calling on your ancestors to help).
> Personally I still have terrible trouble visualising the difference
> between "active" and "non-active" use of a skill from the point of
> view
> of the character. As a rules-construct, yes, easy, but in-game?
Well, for one--when magic is used actively, it's very showy. (Light, sound, all that. Your sword looks unnaturally big and sharp.) Whereas I think augments are more behind-the-scenes. So... When a character has the talent "Strong as an Ox" and uses it as an augment, it doesn't look like he's using magic--he's just found that he seems to be able to swing that axe a little harder and work a little longer without getting tired. But when he concentrates in common magic, he can use the power all by itself--he can drag a plow across the field as if he were an ox, and when he does it, he actually looks big and strong and hairy (and maybe even has hooves).
Powered by hypermail