As Graham said: Yes.
And if so, why (except if they lacked enough HP) woudl
> anyone raise feats rather than affinities?
Some of the affinities have very varied feats (try saying that three times fast!). Say, for instance, that my Gerendetho Devotee is much more interested in being the perfect Goat than fighting. In fact, he's secretly a coward. (Shock! Dismay!). In Gerendetho's Fighting affinity is the feat "Get Me Out of Here". Rather than spend 3 points to raise all five fighting feats, those three points can get me GMOoH +3 - turning it into a 20, while all my other fighting feats are merely 17.
Is this something a player would want to do? Maybe. We included the possibility for those that do.
> My mental thought was that raising an affinity raises any feats lower
> than it. So if you have a 17 in the affinity and a 17, a 21, a 17 and
> an 18 in the feats, raising the affinity to 18 means you have an 18,
> 21, 18 and 18. But I'm not sure I understand it correctly.
Nope, everything raises by 1 point. As graham said, it's easier to write "+1" rather than "18" - saves wearing a hole through the character sheet with erasings...
> A second question: it is allowable, I assume, for players to raise
> feats _higher_ than the affinity? It seems logical to me, but I
> wasn't sure if the affinity is supposed to represent the "maximum"
> that individual feats can reach (and that's why there's two costs in
> the book). But that seems odd.
There would be little reason to have the ability to raise an individual feat if it couldn't get above the Affinity :-).
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
Powered by hypermail