Nick Brooke:
> Several people seem to have missed what Alex said.
>
> A *description* of some of the things a feat can do is NOT the same thing as
> a *definition* of all the things (or, RQ-wise, "the only thing") a feat can
> do.
>
> Descriptions of some of the sorts of things that Orlanthi can achieve with
> (to name the most prominent offender) their Sunset Leap feat would be an
> unqualified Good Thing, IMO. Otherwise we'll all be developing mutually
> incompatible accounts of how a basic Orlanth Adventurous feat works.
Indeed. That's very much what I was struggling to convey, in between seethes. And to be clearer about my agenda, I don't say so for the purposes of whinging about HW:RiG -- it's a short work, and you get a _lot_ of religious bang for your buck, so conciseness isn't entirely to be disparaged. Rather, I'm thinking more in terms of the forthcoming Player's Books -- isn't that sort of thing _exactly_ what one would want to see in the OPB? Examples, longer descriptions, mythic precedents, yadda-yadda. (New game mechanics strictly optional...)
Not this coincides even remotely with what little gossip about what's actually likely to be in TR, but a guy can wish, can't he?
> (New feat for Yelmies -- "Set Spear to Receive Sunset Leap"?)
Owch. That's just gotta hurt.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail