>Roderick added
>
>> Just for the record, *I* am opposed to making Close Combat (or ranged combat
>> for that matter) a broad skill, because (as Dave Dunham pointed out) the
>> only thing you can really use it for is "hurt your opponent" (and "keep from
>> getting hit"). Who cares if you hurt him with a big blunt object, a tiny
>> sharp one or a medium-sized pointy one? It all boils down to the same thing.
>> The tool used to hurt my opponent really doesn't matter. I might as well
>> make "Carpentry" a broad skill because I can use a saw or hammer or chisel.
>
>Thanks, Roderick. I think I've added that (as originally pointed out
>by Robin Laws), most heroes in fiction seem to be able to use any
>available weapon. When Gunnar (in Njal's Saga) obtains a halberd,
>suddenly he's an expert halberd warrior.
The only justification would seem to be some minimaxing game balancy thing - CC is so damn useful that it should be more expensive to encourage characters to develop other skills.
A case can be made, but it would seem contry to the intent of most of HW,
Powered by hypermail