Re: defensive ability

From: Jeff <jeff.kyer_at_...>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:52:52 -0000

Unless you can force a person NOT to use a _RELEVANT_ ability, this is difficult. Of course, the narrator can impose a hefty improvisation penalty if they feel the ability being invoked to defend with (this creating the resistance) is inappropriate.

Much of this was covered in the past in some rather extensive discussion. Might I suggest checking the archives and looking up Oscar Wilde vs The Troll?

> Use the most applicable skill, where "most applicable" means "what
you can
> convince the narrator". If you are getting hit with a Lightning Bolt
(frex),
> you might argue for Dodge ("I leap out of the way"), Tough ("Bring
it on, I
> can take it"), etc, If all else fails, you can "call on the gods"
(or
> spirits/saints/etc) and take a 14 (which is the "natural" resistance
to
> magic). Of course, the narrator is free to say "No, Witty Repartee
is not a
> good skill for resisting Lightning, choose another skill"...

Ah, _someone_ remembers poor Oscar...  

> Note that the "natural" resistance for purely mundane attacks is 6,
not 14.
> A weedy character getting hit my a sword who doesn't have Close
combat,
> Agile, Tough, etc, will have a 6 ("no skill") ability rating.

Of course, someone that pathetic would probably have 'Run from Danger.'  

> The "most applicable ability" rule does allow for players to claim
> Relationships, "Spurious Logic", or "Witty Repartee" as a defense
against a
> weapon (otherwise known as "Oscar Wilde vrs the Great Troll"), and
this is
> an intentional feature, not a bug. The narrator is alway free to
assign
> gross improv. penalties (the "Yes, but..." rule).

And remember, its always easier to say 'sure' and give an improv penalty to the player than argue and rant about why its NOT appropriate -- though I still won't let close combat be used to resist magic.

Jeff  

Powered by hypermail