I tend to agree that the non-linearity of augments is a design decision, and basically OK. I think that this particular issue is non-linear in worse and more unbalancing ways.
> Similarly I can see that multiple improvised feats would be a bad
>thing if allowed (I do not believe they are) but I think that
>limiting to one augment per affinity penalises devotees of gods with
>single-minded powers at the expense of multiple initiates who put the
>same effort into their divine ties yet would get twice the possible
>number of augments.
The non-linearity is an issue. Hence, lets limit it to edges.
> > I want the value of an ability to be based on the level of an
>> ability. Is that so shocking?
>Not at all, although I suspect it was a design decision to allow
>magic to dominate at the higher levels because that seems to be what
>the rules were designed for.
I think its certainly a factor. My issue is not so much that magic is dominant, but that thewrong variables are dominant. I have no problem with ability levels in augmenting affinities being a major factor in deciding a contest. I do have a problem with the less important variables of number of feats and rounds of preparation being more decisive factors than ability level.
> Before looking too hard for fixes I
>think we should bear in mind that this example was a fairly special
>case (a set piece duel with effectively unlimited time to augment
>beforehand) rather than the sort of thing that is going to crop up
It is pretty much too dominant to not be a major play theme as presented, though. The are talking about more than 3 levels of mastery here, where 1 is a decisive fight winner!
Powered by hypermail