>I can't really see the benefits of dividing the combat skills down
>any further than this ...
>
>Tommy the Trollkin
>Armed Combat 13 (Club, Spear and shield)
>Unarmed Combat 12(Bite)
>Ranged Combat 14 (Thrown Rock, Sling)
>Group Combat 17 (Trollkin Mob)
>Mounted Combat 8 (Hambeetle Lance)
Count me as a vote for this being far too many divisions. Unarmed combat should be a combat style, and many unarmed combat styles include armed variants (all those wacky kung fu weapons), and often vice versa (kenjutsu including dodges and disarms, for example). The current system works very well for this.
Group Combat and Mounted Combat should probably be more in the lines of augments or something, or even just also combat styles - ie its not so much that your Praxian raider has a penalty off a horse, its more that he only has Close Combat (mounted sword, mounted lance), and once he changes it to Close Combat (mounted sword, mounted lance, sword on foot) he will be fine - though still missing the benefits of enhancing Combat with Riding. Similarly, Bruce the Hoplite has Close Combat (phalanx 2H spear), which he can enhance with his Hold the Line skill.
It needs a bit of judgement, but its up to you. If you think Bruce the Hoplite shouldn't be allowed to use his 2H spear outside of formation, just declare that Close Combat (lone 2H spear) is an actual combat style, so you can't buy it, so its always at an improv penalty. If you don't care about stuff like that, it really doesn't matter.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail