I thought the "proper" way to deal with this to give improvisation penalties to the broad skill when used in place of any of the specific skills that the "specialist" might have in it's place
> Now, if I'm writing up an NPC, I can say he's a Heortling (15)
> Hunter (5w1) Odayla initiate (20), or whatever. In part, that's the
> same as saying "He has all the Hunter keyword abilities at 5w1, but
> don't sweat about the details." It doesn't mean that the same
> shorthand would be useful for writing up all PCs.
It's also how you might write up a Follower "... And his drinking
companion Oddi the Hunter (Hunter 19, Quaff Ale 2W)"
>
But I'm not sure how you "disallow" it in a PC (You might discourage it, of course) but if my 100 words includes "...And in his youth he went hunting with his Uncle..." and want a Hunting 13 as a result, what do you do? I don't have enough words to say "Stalking, tracking, hiding, shooting, butchering, skinning" - and anyway, that could be rejected as just being a list
> >> (Alternative: if you allow character keywords as single write-in
> >> abilities, what do you do when a player wants "Warrior" as an
> >> ability: not the expensive keyword, just a one-word cheapo
skill?)
>
> > Warrior is not a skill, it is a key word.
>
In this situation I'd treat "warrior" (or Soldier etc) as a synonym for "Close Combat(style(s))" and possibly a relationship to the Warband/Army/Regiment etc
> Hunting is not a defined ability in Hero Wars, either.
Ha! neither are Tracking, Stalking, Hiding etc etc. There are no "defined" abilities, just abilities. You merely have to decide whether a particular ability is relevant or not, and how much so, to any given situation.
> Hunters (key
> word) don't get Hunting (ability). This suggests to me that you
> shouldn't allow players to invent Hunting (ability).
Yet one of the strengths of HW is that players can invent any abilities that they like, rather than being forced to pick from a narrow list. I don't recall seeing "Shear Sheep" in any keywords - does that mean that no one should be allowed to invent that ability?
>For the record, I like the proposal
> that existing "broad" abilities (Close Combat, Affinities,
>Grimoires) can have specialist sub-abilities within them --
>
> Close Combat 17 (fyrd combat, sword & shield +3)
> Movement 5w1 (Run Up Cliffs +2, Sunset Leap +5)
>
And me.
> But inventing Broad Skills to solve the problem of "Hunting"
> ability
But I don't necessarily see a problem with Hunting 19 (Tracking +3) - especially if the Narrator additionally has the option to apply an Improv penalty when the skill is used for a more specific ability Move Silently (Hunting -3) or Wilderness Survival (Hunting -10) etc.
Likewise I don't see why you shouldn't allow further specialisation
of "normal" skills
Follow Tracks 17 (of deer +3) or Move Sliently 13 (through forest +5)
>
> > Judging from other discussions on the list it seems that many
> > people DO think that Close Combat as a single (not broad) skill
> > DOES include karate, rapier with swordbreaker, broadsword and
> > shield and sharpshooting.
>
I think allowing "specialisation" will help to fix this. When the skill is "Close Combat 5w (brawl, Shortsword & Shield, 2 Handed Axe) it is a short step from "I'm equally good in 3 unconnected froms of combat" to "I'm equally good in all forms of combat". When there will be an (implicit) +0 after the styles which haven't been improved additionally then it will be easier to remember that anything not listed is at a -x (It strikes me now, not having considered it before that using Close Combat(sword and shield) as a default for "brawling" should be at less of a minus than using it for "Twae Kon Do" - but I'm happy to leave it to narrators to decide minuses 'on the fly' rather than try and develop a hard and fast rule to cover every eventuallity)
Powered by hypermail