Benedict Adamson:
> Alex Ferguson wrote:
> ...
> > A possible "fix"
> > is to give someone _positive_ sit-mods for "ultra applicable" abilities,
> > which seems a little odd, but has a certain logic to it.
>
> I've considered this, but of course it doesn't help them often being
> inapplicable to a session and therefore being expensive (on average)
> to increase.
Indeed so.
> >Or giving them
> > more "leeway" in how to apply narrow abilities than broader ones, as
> > I've seen suggested in various forms.
> ...
>
> Err, you'll have to help me on that one. You seem to be saying that
> the narrow ability should be applied as a broader ability, if I
> interpret 'leeway' to mean no (or small) improv. penalties. I doubt
> thats what you mean!
Well, to steal an example from a fellow lister from an off-list communication from way on back (no names, no pack drill <g>), suppose someone is trying a tricksy parry-riposte-and-disarm combo, with their Safelster-style rapier. Whom do you give the better chance of succeeding with this to, the chap with "Close Combat 15W", or the guy with "Tiskos cloak and blade fighting style"? (Assuming, hypothetically, you have in game in which the two are allowed to co-exist, and you may (or may not) be trying to have the two "selfbalance" in some sense.)
But since you mention imp-mods... I don't think it follows from making ability tags narrower, this _necessarily_, or even sensibly, means that stiff penalties should be applied the instant one steps outside the domain of that description. If someone had _only_ the ability "Tiskos cloak and blade fighting style", what an appropriate penalty would be if they suddenly jumped on a horse and carried out a lance charge would, as at present, be entirely up to the GM's decision as to what degree of "carry over" would indeed be appropriate. A lot of the counter-argument to the broad abilities idea seems to be assuming that "narrow tags" _has to_ also mean yet-stricter application of penalties, which I don't think follows at all.
Powered by hypermail