> > Shame about 'Combat' (or rather "the 'Combat's"), though
> I think we've gone over this before
I think you might be right, and ask for 183 similar offences to be taken into consideration, m'lud. Had the rules done something remotely logical, I trust we wouldn't be going over it again... However, what sparked me off this time is a table listing them as if they _really were_ a single Affinity, rather than umpteen quite different ones.
> but I don't see anything wrong
> with a Combat affinity. It's magic that lets you fold, spindle, or
> mutilate people.
That's a spectacularly trite characterisation. It's also based entirely on end-effect, whereas most Affinities are grouped by magical source. Logically, 'mutilating' someone with a bolt of fire from the sun has little in common with 'folding' them one's great strength, wouldn't you agree?
> Why not give all such magic the same name?
Because a cursory examination will tell you it's not 'an Affinity', it's many _different_ affinities with the same name. Or would you play (as I've just noted Jeff Kyer would -- de gustibus, etc) that having 'Combat' from two _different_ gods (or different cults, more to the point) would have simply a single rating, and coalesced Feats? (Though the 'feats' case can't arise, in practice, now that I think about it -- I think.)
It's especially misleading when all those 'Combat' affinities appear next to a Death rune; some of the 'Combat' feats have nothing at all to do with Death, while some feats from quite different affinities will have you pushing up daisies a treat. (Quick quiz: which of these is a 'Combat' feat: Conceal Self, Enchant Tin, Enchant Silver, Armour of Woad, Leap from Hiding, Great Pounce, Kill Undead, Fight Darkness, and Fight against Uz?
Powered by hypermail