Not me guv. I may have suggested that I thought other people were doing this when they said that HW Feats didn't match the descriptions given of different named RQ Spells, though. I mean once you can accept that "Armour of Woad" is not something that can only be cast once a year, or that "Thunderstone" is not just a pseudonym for "Create Hand Grenade", then surely it becomes obvious that referring to RQ descriptions is being *the only correct interpretation* is pointless. And if you already accept this, why are you complaining about the RQ descriptions not being repeated in HW? ("You" here being a general You and not an attack on any particular You)
>or Solar Flying as being generally vertical
> in nature on p.64 (although a Narrator may allow a Solar flyer
> working in conjunction with a Lokarnos devotee to achieve
horizontal
> flight as Lokarnos is a god of movement and I am fine with that),
you
> can define a Sunset Leap or a Snarl Darkness in general terms also
> and it doesn't ever make the rules a rigid stalemate.
Where do you draw the line though? Adding a couple of lines for these two feats may have been helpful, saying "'Armour of Woad' is a feat that allows you to treat Woad like Armour" or "'Swordhelp' is a feat used to help you use your Sword" are redundant. Add that redundancy for every listed feat and we are loosing a lot of otherwise useful text.
> Instead it
> gives more scope in interesting ideas and aids people in coming up
> with interesting improvisational ideas. Why is that wrong!!!?
Never said it was. Since the feats are described in (very) general terms (they have a name and an affinity), and people have posted interesting improvisational ideas here, why isn't everyone happy?
Powered by hypermail