Campaign Guide

There will be better guidelines for Hero Point dispersal. Eric and I had a long talk about errata and there will be that coming as well

There will be better guidelines for Hero Point dispersal. Eric and I had a long talk about errata and there will be that coming as well
For the former, I hope so. I saw three HP given out across three modules.
(( And most of the time, people Were happily playing both vices and virtues to their own detriment and to the general enjoyment of the tables… as an example of a spot where a HP could/should be awarded. ))

I’d be keen to learn what the scope of the errata might be. Cleaning up the wording of certain things (to close loopholes or ensure clarity)? Or actual changes to mechanics?
I ask as someone who questions the notion of playing 10 to 15 adventures in order to learn one greater rite (as an example of my general concerns about the point-costs for talents and rites ).

Ooh, ooh, and maybe the Aid Another action could be codified?

Using a combination of points 1 & 2…can someone with an Avoidance of 1 use a Wager that lowers Avoidance by 2? I assume yes, since otherwise it becomes too nit picky.

John

Awesome, thanks for the heads up.

-Vic

This is a bit different for something like a Stance. A fighting man wears heavy armor so he can stay aggressive in a battle.

This will make those with heavy armor have more advantages then. Armor already gives good damage reduction at the cost of low Avoidance. If they can also go aggressive and get the bonuses with no further penalties, it might make it the ‘default’ method.

Yeah, this is starting to confuse me too. If you can’t wager a resource you don’t have, an Aggressive Stance should not be possible if you have an Avoidance that’s been reduced to 1 or less. Unless, in this case, the wager applies to the base Defense before the Armor reduction is considered. By that definition, a character is always able to go Aggressive because even the lowest Avoidance starts at 2 (unless there is a flaw I’m forgetting).

Perhaps any Avoidance under 0 could penalize something else? Maybe every point of your Avoidance you wager below 0 gives the attacker 1 more Die for Damage?

This was my first thought too. Only downside is, the whole thing becomes a wash. There really isn’t a point to wearing good armor if your opponent just bypasses it. So if the intent is for Armor and the Aggressive Stance to compliment each other, this doesn’t work. OTOH, giving the opponent extra dice for his ATTACK roll might.

But you know what? All this speculation and arguing over a handful of words Eric has tossed out is silly. I think we need to see the actual errata/clarification/change (or at least a solid draft) before we start gnashing teeth and poking holes in it.

… even the lowest Avoidance starts at 2 (unless there is a flaw I’m forgetting).

Feeble Ability, with the other ability set at 2.

As it is, armor ends up a wash pretty quickly. After all, a lower Avoidance means you will be hit more often. Since excess successes on the attack also add to damage, lowering Avoidance also means you are more damaged. The exchange ratio of Armor Value to Armor Penalty for existing armor is not in the armor wearer’s favor. That doesn’t even account for the movement skill penalty associated with Armor Penalty…