> 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.
I think that there are two different, and important points here.
1 - sometimes, use of a different ability by an actor does force the opposition to change the skill they use. But I think that this is rare and always involves the actor using an ability very specific designed to overcome an opponents advantage.
2 - often, use of a different ability by an actor causes an improvisation modifier for the opposition. I think that improvisation modifiers are greatly underused (both from the POV of the games I have played in and also from the discussions here - improv modifiers should occasionally be positive too!).
In the case of the Salmon Leap or (as mentioned in Benedict's later post) when the actor wants to withdraw, I would suggest that the opposition gets a modifier, maybe as high as -10, to their Close Combat.
Why? 'Cos the game is designed with generic abilities so that NPCs only need 2 skills. I understand that the Heroes book (due soon) and the revised Deluxe rules (due later this year) will emphasise the core role of generic abilities and (I hope) subskills within abilities, further extending the idea of Close Combat(Sword and Shield) and Affinity(Feats).
In an extended contest, all changes are modeled through changes in Action Points and, to a lesser extent, changes in current ability ratings and edges. But the real action is in the dramatic explanation of what a character plans/hopes to do, how the opposition reacts and, after the rolls, what actually happened.
In the case of the withdrawing actor, as history shows that more casualties take place in withdrawal/rout, maybe the opposition should get a +10 modifier on Close Combat. But it is the Narrator's call as to which modifier they choose, subject to both dramatic requirements and the need for the players to feel that it was a fair decision.
regards,
Charles
Powered by hypermail