>gamartin_at_nortelnetworks.com wrote:
>...
>> Although.... based on the example of switching combat abilities, a
>> player might resonably argue that they are better off
>> using "dragonslayer sword 17" than "Close Combat 25", as Kallai did
>> against the zombie.
>...
>
>Unfortunately, not according to the rules.
>It has been pointed out before what a poor example that is.
>The only rule mechanism for modelling how appropriate an ability is
>for an action is the improvisational modifier, which is always a
>penalty. Few would deem that Close Combat merits such a penalty when
>used to attack a dragon, so directly using a 'Dragonslayer Sword'
>ability (rather than using it as an augmentation) is unlikely to be
>advantageous (as the warrior is likely to have a larger Close Combat
>ability than Dragonslayer Sword ability).
The example only works if you allow rule of thumb house rules such as 'Fight undead' will slay a zombie getting to 0AP. Far better if it had been used to point out that 'Fight Undead' allowed an additional augmentation.
>I've been told that a playtest draft of the rules allowed you to
>assign a bonus to ability ratings if they were useful (or more
>useful) in only some situations. IIRC, David Dunham expressed regret
>that this rule was removed. It sounds as if this kind of rule would
>model a Dragonslayer Sword well. I hear a second edition of the rules
>is planned. Perhaps the authors could rexamine that discarded rule?
Seems a good one.
Powered by hypermail