JK (not the one with the hat):
> >
> > >
> > It introduces the notion of using an Affinity "directly", as opposed
> > to using a Feat. These seems an unnecessary complication: isn't
> this
> > essentially the same in effect as saying an initiate has exactly one
> > feat per affinity, and isn't allowed to learn more? (Other an by,
> or
> > en route to, becoming a devotee.)
> Basically, that's how I view an initiate's use of an affinity - he's
> got one feat "Dear God: Halp!" which is pretty flexible.
It may be six and half a dozen, really. It just "feels" to me that adding the idea of being able to use an affinity instead of/as well as a Feat from same complicates matters. It also leads to niggles like whether devotees can do the same, giving them yet another to add to their grand list of augments, or if not, why not...
> > So by and large I think I like the general idea, but I think it
> could
> > be expressed better. Rather than implying that initiates improvise,
> > and devotees don't have to, I think it would be more cleanly
> expressed
> > as a difference in breadth of effect.
>
> Be interested in seeing how that could be worded... =)
>
> Jeff
Hrm, me too... I think the key point is to avoid the word "improvise", which has both certain RW connotations that confuse matters, and a more particular game-mechanical meaning in HW. What about just calling it an unknown Feat penalty?
Powered by hypermail