>Wulf:
> I have considered requiring mythology rolls to improvise feats, but
> hit two problems:
>
> 1) why should you know a feat one week, then promptly forget it the
> next, based on a roll of the die? To be fair, you'd have to note
all
> improvised feats (not an arduous task, but more paperwork).
I'd say you forget the improvised feat just like you lose any benefit that you do not cement by spending HP.
> 2) why is a devotee improvising a feat he has not cemented
(whatever
> that means to the CHARACTER) be any different to an Initiate
> improvising a feat? Both are using unfamiliar powers.
Yes, they could be the same. I only put devotee because the rules for them are clear and undisputed, unlike the rules for initiates :] Also there aren't any initiate PCs in the London group's game (Fire Bull campaign).
> I don't see how basing it on feats already known works - is it
> positive "Oh, I know that Afinity so well, it's easy to improvise
> from it", or negative "Ah, I've just about run out of feats in that
> Affinity".
I guess I was thinking purely from a rules point of view. It seems to me that the Devotee of X and Mythology of X abilities are under-used, maybe that's just the London group's game.
>
> > Furthermore, you could increase (or decrease) the HP cost to
> improve
> > an affinity depending on the number of feats the character has.
>
> As above, which would it be?
More feats/subskills = more HP cost. Upping the Affinity rating gives you more if you have more feats, so it should cost more too.
sjjh
Powered by hypermail