Well, so does almost everything - this is HW.
>If a Chalana Arroy's player gleefully participated in every combat
>(using a bodyguard's Close Combat), something doesn't seem quite
>right. For a non-CA, things are greyer, but Bevara certainly doesn't
>seem to be a combat role, and I'd hesitate to make combat an
Sure, but there are plenty of situations where you can imagine someone that is not a particularly effective close combat fighter being a war leader. You could imagine, for example, a priest with poor close combat, but some decent war magic and tactical ability, being given bodyguards.
>I think the general rule should remain that you use the main
>character's ability (Close Combat in this case), and consider any
>exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I know I'd be more likely to
>allow the follower's higher Close Combat defensively.
I have no problem with using the followers ability instead of the characters if it is higher - however, in this case, the followers should actually be treated as a separate entity rather than just as separate APs.
Sure, this could be seen as giving the character with the followers a real advantage, but followers are an advantage. And its not as good as having the ability yourself (which is just as easy as having followers, so the reasons for not doing so are probably good for the narrative).
If a non-combatant/incompetent combatant character had several competent bodyguards, I would simply run them as a single separate aggregate entity (ie add all their APs together, but keep the same skill).
Powered by hypermail