Oh pish-tosh, it was a counter-twit responding to your hyperbole.
> Me, I call that "hand-waving". I'm delighted to accept, however, that this
> advice wasn't responding to a perceived problem.
Do I think that Octuple augments are a problem? No. Not even when the hero
ends up with 20w6.
Do I think that everyone goes around with Octuple Augments? No. Joe
Heortling doesn't wake up every morning and run through a power-up regimen,
resulting in the kick-assingest farmer (or warrior, or lawspeaker) around.
Heroes (and, by extension, players) should work at getting that level of
magic up and running. *Keeping* it up and running is another problem for
them to face. Requiring a ritual for Octuple augments keeps them
viable-yet-uncommon. Letting people get 3 augments before ambushes is a
compromise between always-on Octuple augments and "You can't prepare feats
for an ambush, start working on your augments while the enemy does their's"
> > I can see a case for restricting the number of feats a player can use to
> > "power up" before a combat (3 feats or so).
>
> Me too. I'd say "1 feat per affinity", approx = "3 feats or so".
My Pella devotee can't "power up" with Glaze Color, Pattern Firing and Even Heat before firing a new pot? She'd have to figure out how to get augments out of Bless Family and Bless Mothers?
My Lhankor Knowing devotee can't start presenting a case with Cite Precedent, Impress Jurors and Interrogate Witness already "up"?
Sounds silly to me. Boring too, probably.
> > I see nothing wrong with a clever character augmenting with everything
> > under the sun.
>
> I find it boring, myself, but I know we will disagree about this (cf. your
> enthusiasm for repeated Arming of Orlanth rituals -- do they maybe run
that
> during the main credits in your gaming sessions? :-)
Que? What enthusiasm for "repeated Arming of Orlanth rituals"? Once per movie/saga is fine for me. Once everyone knows what a basic ritual looks like, there is no real need to run it repeatedly, unless something goes spectacularly wrong (or right) during it.
> Also, my main objection (as a clever character like yourself cannot fail
to
> have noticed) is to a character augmenting obsessively with the same
bloody
> affinity, time and again, world without end. Not "everything under the
sun"!
Note that Wesley's initial question was about using using named feats from three affinities, all from the basic information about the god. He was not improvising feats, so there is a finite number of feats he'd have up and running; he wasn't augmenting "world without end". Later he told us that it was, in fact, for a specific duel, so the only change I would have made is "make up and name a ritual for it".
> > Explain, then, the difference between Initiate and Devotee as far as
magic
> > goes.
>
> Initiate get affinities; Devotees get feats. See "Thunder Rebels" and
"Storm
> Tribe" for the best presentation of this. (But see also Neil Smith's
> excellent proposal at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hw-rules/message/11942,
> for what looks like a *very* viable alternative).
Gee, Nick, I never thought to read Storm Tribe or Thunder Rebels. How good of you to point them out to me. :-|
If you take away the ability of a Devotee to use multiple feats from the same affinity when augmenting, then his magic is no better than an Initiate's *when augmenting*.
RR
Powered by hypermail