> > It depends, did the Narrator allow him to take "Weaponthane"
> > and/or "Clan Champion" as part of his writeup?
>
> In the narrative, at 13 as an extra keyword? They can't really replace
> his Warrior skill, can they, that's a prerequisite for both of them?
I usually write in the Warrior and Weaponthane keywords in NPCs that I write up - but really it's a reminder to the reader that there are abilities available more than just the ones in the "Champion" (or whatever) keyword.
The advanced keywords are really a "suggested collection of suitable skills" more than a template for a Player-Hero to take. You don't ever "buy" the "Clan Champion" keyword during play, you just acquire the abilities that fit. After all, the Clan Champion is as much a political appointment as anything. I view the advanced templates (especially the ones that say something like: "catch the chief's eye") as "If you want to aspire to Clan Champion, here are the abilities you should be thinking about". During play, if they run up against the Clan Champion then the keyword gives the narrator a quick idea of what the holder of the position is *likely* to know.
> > Of course,
> > it's a pretty poor clan that has a starting charcater as it's
> > Champion (two abilities, maxed out at Chargen time, at 7w). A
> > "true" clan champion will have most of his "work-realted"
> > abilities in the 10w-10w2 region, not *just* his "Best combat
> > ability".
>
> That was my feeling, but we've had the difference between keyword at X
> and best skill at X pointed out, so it's as well to be sure.
Yeah, I know. And my personal feelings about how to play have relaxed a lot - "Keyword or broad ability? Eh, whatever..."
> Oh, agreed. Ever since that very decisive change of cult back in 1611.
> From Vanganth to Dar - not quite complete opposites, but not far off. I
> wonder how much of *that* keyword is still left? Not the magic, of
> course, but the skills and attitudes. As I was saying earlier, are there
> rules for a keyword dropping due to lack of practice?
Nope, no such rules in the official material, and not likely to be.
Personally, while my skills at some things have deteriorated since I left Intel, I can still polish them up rather quickly if need be. The knowledge is still there, but just not in primary memory. Rather than an actual decrease in ability ratings, you might just assign a penalty to the ability that hasn't been used in a while, then reduce and/or eliminate the penalty as the hero continues to use the ability.
If you *insist* on a thumb-rule, try this:
Not used the skill in 1 year: -5
Not used the skill in more than a year: -10
First attempt of the skill after not using it: full penalty
Second attempt: half penalty (round up) (3 or 5)
Third attempt: quarter penalty (1 or 3)
After that: no penalty.
> > > Oh, and did you miss off her "guerilla warfare" skills? I'm sure
> > > that's a keyword, not a straight skill, too?
> >
> > Depends - I can see it as a keyword (Ambush, Live off the
> > land, Local contacts, Know Mao's Little Red Book, etc) or
> > more like a "Tactics:
> > Guerrilla Warfare" single skill. And I might even
> > play/narrate it differently on two different days.
>
> "Broad skill", that can be improvised off? I suppose that's what
> keywords are, really.
Basically, yes. For a *player* you might want to define it a bit more, since there are differences between "Keyword", "Broad ability" and "Normal ability" (Improv modifiers, HP cost to improve, etc - See "Improving broadly defined abilites, page 179) . But for an NPC, something like "Guerrilla Warfare" can be any of those at need.
RR
C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du pr�sent a
fait ce qu'il a fait.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail