>That's a good point; as written, sub-cult magic is a 'free lunch' in
>everything aside from (the small matter of!) the HP cost of buying the
>'extra' abilities themselves. A 'penalty' therein isn't necessarily
>unreasonable.
Right, the only question is whether it would balance or not (meaning be attractive enough to take, but not so attractive that this was all anyone takes).
> > OTOH, if you want to make them even closer in attraction, make the
>affinity
> > just as broad as any other.
>
>But that's already expressly possible (at least potentially). So if one
>were offered a choice between 'affinity' and 'stand-alone feat, for
>which you'll pay full affinity cost anyway', it's not a hard decision.
Well, my point was that there would be no stand-alones, that all would have "normal" affinities. As opposed to my earlier idea of having the stand-alones have "narrow affinities" associated.
But, yeah, you can neatly avoid the problem by just never giving an example of a sub-cult with a stand-alone feat.
Mike
Powered by hypermail