I think what David's saying is that both initiates and devotees are "improvising". The difference is, an initiate can only improvise the feats he sees devotees do. e.g. a Humakt initiate has seen a devotee do the "Truesword Stroke" feat, so the initiate knows that's the kind of thing he can do with his "Sword" affinity. He can improvise a "Truesword Stroke" feat, and pay the improv penalty, but he cannot improvise a brand-new feat from scratch.
A Humakt devotee, on the other hand, knows the affinity much better. He paid the HP for "Truesword Stroke", so he can use it without an improv penalty. If there are feats he hasn't actually used yet, like, say, "Decapitate Foe", he can improvise those, just like an initiate. But in addition, he can improvise brand-new feats, which he hasn't paid HP for and hasn't seen anyone do. For example, if his father is trying to convince him to do something out of family loyalty, the Humakt devotee could draw his sword and improvise a "Cut family connection" feat, imitating the myth where Humakt used his new sword to sever his ties to the Storm Tribe. He's improvising a brand-new, but appropriate, "Sword" feat--something a devotee can do, but which, apparently, an initiate cannot do.
That said... since the short cult listings in the book don't even list feats, I think we have to allow initiates to make up and improvise any feat that sounds appropriate. I mean, if a player has a Babeester Gor initiate, all the player knows is she has a "combat" affinity. (No feats are listed in the HQ book.) If the player and narrator do not have extra source material, like "Storm Tribe", they don't know what the "named feats" are. I think in that case, they have to let the initiate improvise any feat that sounds reasonable.
Powered by hypermail