>IMG, it would take much less than a
>minute to empower a feat because the rules say on page 138 that you need
>only one unrelated action in an extended contest to use one. In a combat for
>ex., you would renounce one of your rounds of attack to attempt to augment
>your CC with a feat. Thus-in my example-Vigga-Varna augmenting her CC with 9
>feats seems perfectly legit and not so over-the-top. It should take her much
>less than 9 minutes, which can be done if the ambush is well prepared, can't
>it?
Yep. Absolutely.
It is why the Orlanthi ambush foes as a normal way of life and avoid equal
face to face encounters.
>Of course there might be other problems... Flickering Blade is perhaps a
>noisy feat with all those electric sparkles flickering on the spearhead.
>Perhaps you need a sharpening stone as a prop to get the Bladesharp feat:
>noisy again. Perhaps a Leaping Shield can't stay in place and would also be
>noisy.
Yes, this is so for me. All the magic has various visual and audible
effects. It doesn't mean you can't prepare in secret, just that it makes it
more difficult to keep it secret. It would provide a modifier to the
enemy's success as detecting your ambush and let them also get their magic
ready.
>One of the would be ambushees might also use his Sense Gods Nearby ability:
>with all those active feats this seems perfectly legitimate. Or his Hear
>Words on the Wind feat with all this mumbling going on.
Exactly.
>My problem as a narratrix (^-^) is that I have to *sell* HW to my veteran
>RQIII players who are very sceptical of the new rules. They aren't
>mini-maxers at heart, but a few of them are without a doubt rule lawyers!
That is unfortunate, and I don't have a reply for it except to remind them
1. they are not playing with lawyerese rules, but with narrative
2. HW is not derived from RQ and if its ancestry in games needs to be
traced, go to White Bear and Red Moon, not RQ.
>And the rules as they are currently written do not seem to put any limits to
>the amount of augmentations a theist can get through feats... *if* he has
>enough time. Time seems to be the only limiting factor.
>
>But of course, as Jeff Kyer has said, I the GM can always say no. Sure, GM
>fiat is always an option and it is so in all RPGs. How satisfying for the
>players! And then why have rules, mmmmh?!?
To provide a reasonable set of guidelines. An rpg require trust between the
players and narrator that they are not out to screw each other, but to play
a cooperative narrative that is within the bounds of accepted
understanding. Sure a bit of rivalry or competition is in order, and as a
narrator I am most entertained when the players are clever and lucky.
When my players are setting an ambush they can really kick ass with all
those benefits and modifiers. Heck, they hardly need Hero Points to win a
fight that way! But when they get ambushed by enemies they an assume their
foes have a mastery or two of preparation, and the heroes know it is time
to run away or else they are ground meat. Or that it is time to grind up
those HP to stand and fight.
Powered by hypermail