I personally find feats relatively easy to interpret: as easy as mundane abilities in most ways. I am not saying I do not sympathise with Mike Ryan who was asking for more game world info rather than game system info. I think it boils down to having either the confidence to make up your own stuff relatively consistently, which is tied to having a strong enough vision of the world, or of agreeing to write down a few lines on feats that actually will get used (ie that Heroes have).
Certain feats, when used as abilities in their own right rather than as augments, I prefer to have some sort of precondition that must be met. As an example, to decapitate a foe, in an extended contest where the contestants are fighting, I would want some pre-ceeding action to get the actor in a postion to chop the other guys head off. If he is in a defensive shield wall, then it gets a big improv penalty. If you can knock his helmet off while tripping him up so he is off balance (but not completely out of AP you understand, this is not a coup de grace) then next action I would allow decapitate foe an a straight ability, against some feeble ability of the defender - ie not close combat, except at a big improv. penalty.
I have had a bit of enyy from players who thought they had powergamed successfuly with a load of combat feats only to be out performed by the imaginative use of, in this particular case, Blue Streak.
I do have problems though with Grimoires and Sorcery Spells. Spells are specified as being much more restricted in usage and this means that a vague two word reference is not enough. Feats are supposed to be interpreted in a "this is how Orlanth would have done it" kind of way. Spells cannot be so easily "interpreted". Another related problem is the definition of which spells go in which grimoire. Our sorcerer Hero has only one Grimoire, on the basis that increasing Grimoire is too expensive and increasing three Grimoires and the restricted use spells within them was too unbalanced.
Powered by hypermail