Quote:
Originally Posted by Otaku
My response to this and to whswhs comment is the same:
Some of us are fond of fiction that are not realistic and where fighters, especially those of note, are going to have at least a few developed Techniques. I am not disputing what is realistic; just expressing my concern over how this change is so dramatic compared to Third Edition, and how it affects some character concepts. Throw in some of the other changes since then (like Deceptive Attack) and it might be great for realistic, even verisimilitudinous fighters, but what about the rest?
|
It's not a question of realism for me, as I don't know enough about any martial art to have an informed opinion about what's "realistic" for it. I'm more concerned with the narrative style of works such as Water Margin, The Three Musketeers, or The Curse of Capistrano, or of wuxia films.
It seems to me that if you are building a combatant, you can efficiently take one Hard technique *for each main skill* in their style. So that might plausibly get you a character with two or three Hard techniques. On the other hand, if you're looking at a single skill, like say Smallsword, it would only be efficient to buy up one technique. But I have the impression that if you're imitating literary or cinematic source material, having one signature technique is pretty common. If you're good at multiple techniques you're probably good all around, and that's represented by buying up the skill.
I'd also note that in 4/e there is NO style that requires you to buy any technique to take the style perk, or call yourself a practitioner of the style.