> For the wizard versus warrior example you would likely
> consider range, cover, weapons and so on. Typically the wizard would
> have an advantage at range (especially if the warrior lacks a ranged
> attack) while the warrior would do better at close quarters.
>
> If both are trying to win the fight then attack abilities would
> usually be used as the primary ability (unless one or the other is
> trying something tricky). Defensive abilities would be usable as
> augments.
>
> So the wizard and the warrior are standing at either end of a 50'
> corridor. The wizard uses Puissant Bolt of Doom. The warrior uses
> his Terrible Swift Sword ability to attack, suffering a penalty of -3
> for the range (the spell could toast him before he gets close enough
> to attack) but Augmenting with his Fast as the Wind ability (he could
> use a dodging ability, too).
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the great explanation and example - that makes perfect sense! Very clear - so that's quite a difference from HQ1.
To take it one step further, let's say the Wizard wins with a Minor Victory. The Warrior therefore suffers a Minor Defeat and is Impaired. Narratively, what does that mean? Is the Warrior now at the Wizard's mercy, or has he been defeated and run away to fight anoher day? If the latter, then presumably he could just use another skill and conduct another Simple Contest with the same goal (maybe he's using his bow this time...)? In that case, would the Wizard be forced to use a different ability also (following the No Repeat Attempts rule)? Or does that only apply if you're defeated?
Cheers!
Sarah