The dragonslayer example might be, but even then I'm not sure.
>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
True, but other modifiers are explicitly allowed too!
>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).
As a narrator I'm trying to allow certain attacks advantages of the kind implied by the example. I think you need to craft the "monsters" carefully, though. Last session I assigned a Draugr a Resist Mundane Weapons ability. It was used to i) generate a defensive edge, ii) to replace close combat to resist certain attacks. Humakti Death magic used directly would have gone against default resistance of 14. Used as an an augment it was resisted by close combat (but couldn't be resisted with Resist Mundane Weapons). This called for some improvisation by me, but did work quite well.
I'd like to see new rules have clearer guidelines for this kind of thing.
>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?
This kind of rule addition could be useful.
Thom
Powered by hypermail