common magic caveats.

On Bryan's straw polls, I vote as follows:
> 2) Rule that a hero can have an innate magical ability that doesn't
> get treated as a common magic ability if they want. It won't be
> affected by concentration of magic, but of course, it starts at 13
> instead of 17. Also it cannot be taught to others the way that a
> talent can be.

With the provisos that I'm not saying it's not common magic, just that the innate subset of common magic ought to be treated as you suggest for concentration (and that we're not getting me started on the topic of what starts at 17, and what at 13, and how bass-ackwards *that* is);

And:
> 3) Common magic feats, spells, and charms do suffer the limitations
> (proximity or repeatability) of their specialized versions. This is
> why you are usually better off taking common magic as talents.

With the proviso that such limitations ought obviously to be applied in a way that makes to a particular religion anyway, rather than 'out of the box' for a particular "system". But a spell acts like a spell, in essence (no pun intended), otherwise why else are we describing it as such in game terms?

I think my overall thinking about common magic and the like is that it's still rather expecting us to jump through hoops of rationalisation and categorisation for what are in effect, if you'll pardon the language, simulationist reasons rather than anything else, and the thing that it's "simulating" is true more in general terms, rather than as a hard and fast rule. Not unlike the misapplication rules of yore (and to an extent of the present), really -- but mercifully they're somewhat kinder and gentler hoops, at least.

Cheers,
Alex.