Well, it depends a lot on how the narrator rules things. I think it
will spice up combat greatly if you do two things:
1) apply some minor one shot bonuses/edges for particularly clever
moves, and more importantly
2) be pretty tough with improvisation penalties, so that a high close
combat (or ranged combat) skill isn't the answer to everything in a
fight.
Just to use the example of flight:
In the first instance say a hero flies directly above his oppenent,
and then casts his spear down at him. You could fairly rule that
there is a penalty to hit (smaller target from above), but that the
defender will have as big, or bigger, penalty to dodge because it is
hard to watch almost directly above your head. In addition, firing
downwards maybe the flier will get an edge on the attack. Sure, it
is still all AP changes based on dice rolls and the same chart, but
it works out very differently than if the hero had just stood there
and chopped at his opponent. (note that the hero may also have skill
limits based on his fight while flying ability)
In the second case, say the hero wants to use his flight to go up above the opponents head, then make a high speed dive to drive his sword right through his opponents head. The hero may "attack" using his flying skill (making a very large AP bid!) because that is where the skill really lies. The defender might defend with a movement affinity of his own, with acrobatics, or with close combat....but if with close combat at a penalty because this isn't the sort of thing you normally have to defend against. Again, it plays out very differently than if you just stand there and chop at the guy.
In short, part of the tactics of combat (or any other contest) will be in finding out which of your skills or affinities match up best against your opponent's skill and affinities. I could imagine, for example, an orlanthi (or even Yinkin) initiate using movement abilities to attack a lunar hoplite, basically running/jumping/flying circles around him until you've gotten him disarmed and sprawling on the ground (in the meantime, he would have been attacking with with close combat, and you would probably be defending with the same, unless you wanted to face BIG improv. modifiers). This of course is why the Lunars don't send small detachments of hoplites into Orlanthi lands!
--Bryan
>
> Now, I agree that magic that is being directly used in an extended
combat
> should fall within the overal context of the extended contest, but
I really
> don't know what I should be doing with each different type of
magical feat.
>
> This leads directly to my biggest complaint about HW, there aren't
enough
> rules to guide GM's and players. Now I'm sure many people like
that, and
> that's fine. Many GM's have better imaginations than I do, and can
weave a
> fine story without any rules. I, however, like rules, they provide
structure
> for me to hang my adventure on. For all the pages that the HW rules
take up,
> there is precious little in terms of real rules. Hey, they can be
summarized
> in 4-8 pages. And while there are some examples, they are mostly
mundane
> examples. I do get tired of the response, sometimes, of well,
whatever works
> for your story. I do that for any game system, but I want rules to
> adjudicate critical parts of the story, and I am having problems
with the
> free form nature of HW.
>
> Not that free form is bad, heck I remember the few privileged times
I was
> able to play with M.A.R. Barker (Of EPT fame). His idea of a game
system and
> rules were D100. Roll low good things happen to you, roll high, bad
things
> happen. Very much like HW, but even more free form. He ran a great
session,
> but I don't have that kind of GM'ing talent.
>
> OK, enough of a rant, on with the conversation.
>
>
> > However, an issue that has arisen in the game I play in (Hello
> > Benedict!) is the game mechanical one of judging the rating
levels of
> > opponents so as to give the characters a good hard but not
impossible
> > extended contest.
> I agree, this is important to many games, critical to HW. In
response to an
> earlier post, someone stated that the HW rules suggested that if
one has one
> full mastery level up on a foe, he could go against 3-5 as an even
combat.
> Well I did that, a champion with an skill of 20W, versus 4 skilled
opponents
> (skill of 20). Ignoring, edges, augmentation, and the like. It was
no
> contest. The champion who started the combat at 40 AP, ended with
almost
> 100.
>
> OK, so go for 6 adversaries you say, so I did. This time the hero
lost a few
> rolls, but in the end, the champion ended up with about 120 points
(heck,
> you have 3 foes left, your AP total is 86, why not bid 20 and knock
out an
> opponent every round).
>
> I even tried to play fairly. Heck, with 20W vs 20 (x however many
opponents)
> the champion probably should go for a big opening blow against a
single
> opponent, since he is almost guaranteed, not only a win, but a
transfer. So
> why not bid 39 on your first attack, you roll 18, the first
defender rolls
> 3. Both successes, but the champion's gets bumped to a critical by
the
> difference in mastery level. BAM! one opponent down, and the
champion now
> has 79 AP. Anybody can tell how this story is going to end, right
now,
> baring some miracle die rolling.
>
> Quite frankly, I think that a person with a full mastery level can
know out
> a virtually unlimited number of opponents, if one rules (as HW
suggests)
> that only 6 opponents may attack in a turn. I personally have a
problem with
> that.
>
> It seems to me the only way to have a close contest is that if all
masteries
> cancel out (or if the total difference is less than about 6 if the
masteries
> don't cancel, e.g. 2W vs 18).
>
> Now if the opponents can use a skill that requires a different
resistance
> roll than what the champion wants, say the 20W was a sword skill,
one could
> have the bad guys attack with magical blasts versus a defense of
14. Now
> that would be entirely different.
>
> Thanks for listening.
> Bill Faulkner
Powered by hypermail