>> does it really matter (in game mechanics) if
>> your Humakti follower is lending you Warrior 17 or Humakt 17?
>
>Uhh, depends on what ability you're asking him to support, doesn't it?
Well, both 'Warrior' and 'Humakt' have a core of common interest. And, in game mechanics, it is only significant in determining whether he has an ability which CAN support. If he can (which is assumed in my question above), no, it doesn't matter in game terms, only in narrative terms. And so, it's not unbalancing for him to have Affinities and/or Feats (which is the point of this thread).
>> It's
>> only when you use a specific feat that it's really significant that
>> the follower has magic,
>
>That's what I meant: if you're entering an extended contest with, say,
>offensive magic (Cutting Wind Blast or whatever) as your initial ability, I
>think the follower should also have some feat that can be used as a ranged
>magical attack if you want to receive his AP.
But Warriors get thrown weapons, maybe missile weapons. Maybe they simply point out targets. Maybe they defend you against other enemies. maybe they just look impressive and intimidate the enemy. The Follower's Ability must be RELEVANT, it needn't be the SAME.
>> otherwise it's just how good they are at
>> being a follower.
>
>This comment I don't understand at all. The follower always needs to have
>some relevant ability.
Naturally, I never mentioned anything to the contrary. But given they have SOME relevant ability, it's not relevant in game mechanics WHAT ability it is, only how many AP it generates. It doesn't unbalance the game having Followers using magic.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail