>Me>That's all very well but what distinguishes a feat from a spell? I
> >know what charms and talents are but with feats and spells, one
> >enters a thick haze where in effect they seem to be the same thing.
>I'm not certain if it's still explicit in the rules, but I play that
>spells are extremely literal, whereas feats allow more flexibility.
>Casting a spell would be a very mechanistic thing -- get the notes
>right -- and performing a feat would be more situational -- improvise
>in the key of C.
However one can't improvise common magic feats and common magic spells are no more effective than other magics.
>I think it's still of value to refer to RQ3, where the priestess acts
>as a vessel for the goddess, and the sorcerer manipulates the laws of
>the world. So a feat is sort of like method-acting the deity, and the
>spell a recipe which must be followed.
When the source of the magic is a magical entity that grants both effects, the distinction between a spell and a feat becomes rather nebulous. Everybody knows that charms are magic that you hold or keep close to yourself to get a magical bonus but feats and spells look and feel the same way both in acquiring and using, which seems contrary to the distinction that gloranthans seem to be able to see..
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail