Re: Re: Initiates using feats.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:23:51 +0100


On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:13:27PM -0000, flynnkd2 wrote:
> Possibly the whole problem here is how you are looking at 'stand alone
> feats'. To me a 'stand alone feat' is merely a hidden taking of the
> affinity with conentration on the feat.

I made a very similar suggestion, but as a self-conscious variation. I don't think HQ as written supports this interpretation. Then again, it says _very_ little about stand-alone feats at all, but the very use of the term suggests something to me other than 'narrow affinity'. As we get into the "I improvise a feat... from my feat -- well, duh" issue.

The other precedent in the rules would be CM feats, which certainly don't seem to be related to affinities in any way. (To set aside the other complifications and amibiguities therein.)

Powered by hypermail