Aescleal (Ashley Munday) wrote:
>
>
> LC he say:
>
> > I think making any ability unable to be used as an ability (only as a
> > stretch or an augment) is unnecessary clutter and unnecessarily
> limiting.
>
> I wouldn't agree that abilities that are designed to be used as
> "stretch and
> broad use only" (i.e. they're so broad that someone in the group of
> characters has a more specific ability) are limiting.
>
I'm saying making it a requirement is.
>
> For example a
> sagacious character in one of my games has an ability "Know everything."
>
Like the guy in one of my games who had "Don't worry, I know somebody here,"
>
> This was made deliberately vague and broad so that the character has a
> chance of influencing the narrative whenever knowledge is key without
> needing to clutter the character sheet with loads of other abilities.
>
A fine thing. I approve completely.
>
> I
> can't recall it ever being used in Hero Wars without an improvisation
> penalty (although it was mostly used as an augment) and these days
> it's that
> ability that cranks up other people's abilities by 6, including
> resistances.
>
Seems perfectly right to me.
>
> Generally I find that most characters have a couple of broad brush
> abilities
> (which are occasionally keywords as well) which tend to get used with a
> bonus to the opposition or as augments. They're mostly skills based (i.e.
> what the character can do) rather than what the character is (although
> you
> could use "know everything" and "sagacious" in similar spheres with a
> bit of
> fancy narrative footwork) but they're still useful in conflicts.
>
Yup. And neither is "Can only be used as an augment."
>
> [Incidentally, a good strategy for a bunch of characters is to make sure
> that you give complementary broad and specific abilities to different
> characters in the same group. It gives you a nice foil to bounce to
> grab +6
> to specific ability bonuses and relevant augments as well.]
>
Yeah, I've done things that way.
LC