> Julian Lord wrote:
> > I should have said that only _specialised_ magic users can use magic
> > directly, ie devotees (who must have concentrated their magic) can,
> > but initiates can't.
>
> I don't see how that's clearer, or more correct, at all.
>
> o Specialised magic user isn't a defined term, but interpreting
> it in the obvious manner of "a member of a specialised
> religion", it does nothing to exclude initiates.
I would have thought it obvious that the intent of the phrase involved opposition of initiates and devotees.
But I guess that this cuts no ice with your Argumentative 15W3 ... ;-)
> o Initiates _can_ use their magic directly (i.e., on parts of the
> World other than their own being/abilities), as discussed below.
Unfortunately, HQ contradicts itself (see below).
> > It's pretty clear on p. 118 that Affinity use by Initiates can only
> > augment other abilities known by the Initiate.A similar stricture
> > applies to CM.
>
> I think it's pretty clear they are _not_ similar.
Stricture is a singular, not a plural.
You appear to have misread the sentence.
Obviously, a single similarity between the Affinity rules and the CM rules doesn't imply that CM and Theism are generally similar.
Confusingly, the Feats rules say something other than the Affinities rules.
<looks puzzled>
> HQ says
> they're using Feats when they do so, you prefer (nay, insist on) the
> construction that they're really using their affinity, but the point is
> they can do so, however you choose to characterise it.
The point _isn't_ whether or not the magic can be used directly, it's whether or not initiates use Feats or Affinities.
Answer : Affinities. Because the Feats aren't on the character sheet, the player will not be able to use them, but will instead say "I use my Wind Affinity to carry my shout across the valley." et cetera ...
In a real game, I mean, with real players not necessarily having read all the books nor necessarily wanting to.
Players of Initiates may not usually record feats on their character sheets.
> > > > I think you're confusing HW and HQ. The important point
> > > > is that "no-one" "ever" uses feats directly ; they use affinities.
> > >
> > > HQ, p118: "A hero cannot use an affinity as an active ability. [...]
> > > An initiate _can_ improvise any named feat in the affinity [...] as an
> > > active ability with a -10 penalty (-5 if he has concentrated his magic
> > > use) [...]"
>
> > Which is clear as mud.
>
> I don't see what's at all unclear about it.
Er, the editing ?
;-)
Obviously, this piece of copy missed a few rounds of re-reading. Blatant giveaway, it says that an affinity is a "broad ... ability", although broad abilities are no longer part of the game.
> You may not use the
> affinity 'directly', but you may use feats, based on same (he said,
> carefully avoiding the I-word, since that was what was originally at
> issue), 'directly', where by 'directly' we mean "not just as an
> augment", to wit, what HQ is calling 'active'.
HQ p. 120 "Unlike initiates, devotees can actively use feats. ... feats learned as part of an affinity are not distinct abilities"
Er, Alex, sorry, but you've completely misinterpreted my objection here : the text is as clear as mud because it contradicts itself, and also involves over-use of certain words thereby creating an aura of confusion around the concepts involved.
> It may not be how you'd
> have chosen to put it (nor me -- nor I think, even what I'd have chosen
> to put...), but its intended practical effect seems pretty easy to
> discern.
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> > The pertinent fact is that the TN is derived from the score in the
> > Affinity. A Feat is simply a common or unusual manifestation of an
> > Affinity. ie the Affinity is the source of the magic.
>
> Which has nothing to do with anything much at issue here;
Yes it does !
Given that p. 118 and p. 120 contradict each other, and that one of the two basic statements is true and the other isn't, one has to do some work to understand which !
I personally would prefer Feats to be defined as I have, ie clearly, instead of the confusion and self-contradiction present in the text of HQ at present, which hand-wavingly suggests that initiates can't use feats directly, and nor can devotees, except ... er ... when they can. At -10 ; or -5 ; or -whatever you want, really, you're the GM, not me ! YGWV !! ;-)
The above is perfectly relevant to the issue as proposing a clear explanation why Feats cannot be used actively, despite what the rules copy confusingly suggests.
Maybe I'm wrong ? Possibly.
Certainly not off-topic, though ... ;-)
> And whether they're 'really' using an Affinity vs.
> 'really' using a Feat is a terminological (or at the risk of you
> mentioning Plato again, a philosophical use) issue, not a
> game-mechanical one.
Balderdash.
<sigh!>
One for the FAQ, obviously...
cheers,
Julian Lord
-- __________________________________ "Hmmm, I've heard of other powers. Can you tell me about ... ... Real Life ?"
Powered by hypermail