That's close. But what it ignores is the quality of the outcomes. The Initiate will have far more Mariginal successes, and the devotee far more minor successes, for instance. Check out my spreadsheet in the files section to see the precise difference.
>If they both increase the affinity by a mastery the
>gap increases to about 15%. You really need over 1W in
>your affinities to make it worthwhile to shell out the
>extra hero points to become a devotee and learn the
>additional feats.
This isn't hard to achieve. 12 HP. And by 1W the differences elsewhere are getting really noticable as well. In any case, this is how HQ works, differences in ratings always seem to have marginal differences. This reflects the "dramatic reality" of the rules. Know what? Players are still attracted to higher numbers, because they know they mean better. No matter how marginally better.
>My gaming group noticed this when we found that
>Devotees* were no better at using feats they'd learned
>than Initiates. Quite often an Initiate was getting
>better automatic magic augments (they could add in a
>couple of common magic feats as well as, maybe, three
>affinities).
Yep, if they can add +5 in other things, then they balance. Seems like Devotees and Initiates are pretty balanced to me.
>If you want to be a decent Theistic magician, a
>concentrated Initiate that spends the same number of
>hero points on magic will be almost as capable as a
>Devotee at using his or her God's magic and probably
>more flexible as they can know common magic feats as
>well.
Almost as capable. Vs. Breadth. I think this is so well balanced that it's amazing. Some players like breadth, and some like being #1. HQ makes these options equally attractive. Very cool, IMO. Few games do this as well.
Mike
Powered by hypermail