> I don't really think it is; for me, personally, I'd like to see
> the broad abilities rules change _even if_ for some mysterious
reason
> we have to keep Close Combat (including karate, fyrd combat, lance
> use, shinty, and sumo, evidently) as a "narrow" skill.
Not sure if this is what you are saying, but I think having all those skills under one ability is a Good Thing.
> There are two quite separate issues here: is the idea of some
> abilities being "broader" than others a valid one, and does it
> merit some degree of rules support; and what "benchmark" should
Not IMO, no.
> the rules set in what's the norm for the "breadth" of abilities
> (or for each class of ability, if this eminently logical rules
To me, a non-sensical question. That is governed by how severe your improv penalty is. All of these abilities have exactly one point of information (the numeric value) and some bits of data (the actual words). A judgement is made of an objective modifier to the value based on the relvance of the subjective data to the circumstance and, it has to be said, the ingenuity of the player. ALL abilities are "broad abilities", and that ain't the Orlanthi all either.
Powered by hypermail