> >And the rules have help against overuse of broad abilities, which
> >keywords certainly are.
>
>Well that's an interesting point.
>I find that the rules certainly seem to imply that since a keyword has a
>plethora of smaller actual abilities under it, it *doesn't* get hit with
>stretch penalties and the like.
I think you'd only get a stretch penalty when the keyword doesn't obviously incorporate the ability you're after.
To me, (a) is not a stretch, but it's about as broad an ability as you could bring to bear. (Doctor keyword, First Aid ability, and Treat Battlefield Wounds would all be increasingly more specific.)
To me, (b) is a stretch -- your knowledge is theoretical, and while you might be able to locate the femoral artery, setting a bone is a practical matter that wasn't in the book.
And (c) is ridiculous.
Another way to look at this: is First Aid something a warrior might reasonably add under the keyword? Yes, combat medic makes sense. A molecular biologist might have the ability, but it doesn't really relate to his occupation.
If we didn't explicitly call out how keywords work with the specific ability rules, it's probably a combination of 1) keywords can be handled several ways (including not existing) so an explanation would get needlessly complex; 2) it seemed obvious that a keyword was broader than any of the abilities it incorporated.
And it's probably worth reminding that specific ability modifiers are relative. If you're at an academic conference, the molecular biologist might be the only one who can use first aid. It's when the paramedic shows up with a more specific ability that he'd get a bonus.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail