>[stand-alone feats vs. 'narrow' affinities]
>I think it probably overbalances it too far the other way, but that of
>course is a function of what in-game effect one thinks is correct/wants
>to achieve.
>
>At any rate, the two ('affinityness' and thus improvisation mods on the
>one had, and 'width' on the other) are in principle separable, though
>Benedict's page/article on widths in general pretty covers that,
>anway...
To be clear, there would be an affinity involved at full level. For instance, that Leap to Trees could be raised 2points to 15 to get a +2 augment on doing so. Yes, it's narrow, but considering that there are only three affinities for a cult, going outside the cult to get others seems potentially attractive in terms of increasing breadth overall. Consider, too, that you can get them without becoming an Initiate, so the narrower ability would be the price you pay for not having the time committment. Basically sub cult affinities would be what you'd go for after you'd Initiated up to max committment under that analysis.
OTOH, if you want to make them even closer in attraction, make the affinity just as broad as any other. I don't see a big problem with that. Means that what distinguishes sub-cults is merely the fact that only one affinity is available to them (as opposed to three). Would this, given the lack of time committment mean that it would be too attractive, again (I sorta hope so)? If so, where's the middle ground for balance?
Mike
Powered by hypermail