> Unless you can force a person NOT to use a _RELEVANT_ ability, this
> difficult. Of course, the narrator can impose a hefty
Umm, the situation I am thinking of is one where the ability is relevant, but the character would bot choose to defend using it if they had any say in the matter.
> Much of this was covered in the past in some rather extensive
> discussion. Might I suggest checking the archives and looking up
Sure, I looked a chunk of that up, but I thinbk it concentrated on the adjudication of combat vs. non combat skills. I am thinkiong of a lisghtly different scenario, so let me give more detail
I was thinking about combat feats from Celtic myth like Salmon Leap, or Chariot Yoke Running. Salmon Leap is the one I had in mind, as my vision of it is basically a somersault over the targets head with a strike to the unprotected back at the end (almost ninja-stylee).
What I was wondering is that such a feat is still a combat ability, so why would the defendant make a parry roll with any ability other than Combat? But this seems to mitigate against the idea of the feat in the first place - say I had Sword 5w and Salmon Leap 17, my chances of success would be lower. The example given in HW dealing with this sort of thing outlines an attack against a zombie in which a feat is used to bypass an inherent ability (invulnerability to normal weapons). In this case, the dramatic change (mundane attack to magical attack) forces the defending zombie to roll under changed circumstances.
So I was wondering if the equivalent for a change to a different mundane attack might be something like forcing the defender to roll with another ability, something like Dodge, rather than their Close Combat, to represent the fact that the sudden attack from the rear means the defender has to scramble around and respond to the surprise.
Powered by hypermail