No, I dislike Masteries being used as breakpoints, I only think of them as game mechanic constructs.
I am, much against my little power-gaming voices, being tempted by the dark side of one Augment per Affinity per action (you could, if you could stand the bookkeeping, have more Augments active, but unused on that Action). All FEATS would be used stand-alone.
I'm only discouraged by the fact that many, possibly most, characters will have Affinities, and so Feats, at lower Ratings than the fully- Abilities they would be used in place of (like, Decapitate Foe lower than augmented Close Combat). This makes it less likely people will use Feats in critical situations.
However, I have a possible solution, tied to a method of using feats I already use, that I describe as 'Bow and Arrow' use. Basically, in the above example, you have to win at Close Combat (the 'bow') before the Feat can be used to decapitate (the 'arrow'). The Ability is used to reach the state where the Feat (which will have the lower resistance suggested at times on this list) can be used. The Close Combat roll would have NO EFFECT other than to allow the Feat to be used. In this case, you'd have to resist Decapitation - not being hit, you've already failed to resist that, since the attacker succeeded at CC. Toughness would work, or a magical defence.
Yes, it means two rolls in one action, but only a single effect. I would like it better if I could convince myself it was justified anywhere in the rules, but all I see is an empty space on the subject of limiting Augments.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail