Roderick wrote:
> Personally I think that most people look too hard at Feats and not hard
> enough at Affinities. What I mean is that there is a lot of jabber about
> what a certain feat does, or allows, etc. Instead, I think people ought to
> look at what the *general* magic of a diety is.
I agree, and I chose the approach of limiting the usability of feats to force devotees to remember that they use the affinity to create their magic, with feats being just the readily thought-out "every-day" actions. Devotees reincarnate their god - why should they only know a few tricks, and try to fit them to all situations, if they have a whole magical aspect available?
> This is one of the reasons that I oppose specifying what a particular feat
> *does* - it is just a name. Does the intended effect seem reasonable within
> the general nature of the affinity? Yes? Then good, I'll allow you to do it.
Likewise, I'd allow it, but only stemming from the affinity, not the feat. If it sounds good, I'll only give a -3 to it. If it's REALLY good and well explained, with a mythical explanation, I might ditch the improv modifier altogether.
> I may assign a penalty to it (Improv or D, depending on the nature of what
> you ask for), but I won't say "you can't do that with this feat".
But if you have to improvise, then it's using the affinity, isn't it? One couldn't use a Salmon Jump feat on dry ground, but could well improvise a magnificent leap from one's movement affinity?
> Once you, the players, have decided what a particular feat does you can
> cement it in your group or leave it loose, as you please. If another group
> has a different interpretation of what "Flickering Blade" does, then they
> are obviously just following a different version of the myth, or using the
> wrong name for the feat that you know as "Yavor's Lightning Spear".
Indeed. There's always another way!
-B
Powered by hypermail