Warfare gods beware

Shadows of Amber :: Canon Law :: Warfare Verus Strength
I think there are two flaws being waved about from my perspective:
1. Holistic Attributes and discussions about mortal experience and mortal logic undermine the basic ADRPG concept of few Attributes and the elegant fundamental differences between Amberites and regular folks.
2. As soon as you say you ‘need’ one Attribute to get best effect from another Attribute you have conceded the debate to the Holistic approach.
For even Endurance, the great equalizer of ranks, comes into play only after comparison of Attributes in conflict.
ADRPG allows there are three conflict Attributes and one tie-breaker Attribute. That’s simple, balanced, and has its own logic that mirrors the books quite well.
Once you say that better Warfare allows you to dodge Strength and Psyche … you have a game that is dominated by Warfare. You have a game where Warfare is the only conflict Attribute backed up by three tie-breaker Attributes.
Which certainly might be perfect first-series interpretation, but isn’t my reading of the rules.



  1. It makes for better gameplay that the three attributes are equally effective, albeit in different situations. To have Warfare trump everything…is not fair.
    The PC-PC conflict going on right now in SB is a classic case of Warfare, Strength and Psyche ALL being used during aspects of the conflict

  2. Having played in a game with a GM who allowed Psyche to be more powerful than all other attributes, I know how annoying it can be in those kinds of games. The GM I played with gave high rank psyche characters free access to all sorts of mental powers such as Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc.. Once I had a high psyche, low warfare character agree to meet my middle to high warfare character in a sword duel. Well it turns out that my character ended up fighting an illusion projected in to my “weak mind.”

Comments are closed.