Re: Broad Abilities

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:10:52 +0300 (EET DST)


On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 gjr_at_... wrote:

<snip>
> Those who insist on using such skills directly can take two actions. If
> you plough using 'Strong' instead of 'Plough' augmented by 'Strong', for
> example, you should (a) suffer a hefty penalty (-20? why not?) and
> (b) suffer dire consequences for failure (minor defeat - broken
> plough?).

Very nicely put.

<snip>
> (1) I have never liked 'Close Combat' and insist on proper weapon
> skills,
> with improv modifiers for other related skills. CC always seemed an
> unnecessary rules clutter to me. The difference in practice has been
> almost negligible...

Do you mean that you use direct

  Sword & Shield
  Brawling

etc...

skills instead of a general cc with style definitions? That certainly is one way to go.

In fact, even if we have an �berskill of CC at 3 HP/level it doesn't mean a characer couldn't have, say

Staff fighting 17 without a CC skill.

Gives more variety, I think. CC is a useful skill for a warrior, but an Issaries Goldentongue, for instance, will do well enough with just a staff skill.

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail