Wulf Corbett wrote:
> Not 'invented', just 'remembered'. That is, the PLAYER invents a myth
> that his CHARACTER remembers from the teachings of his deity (or that
> he's seen while on the God Plane). So long as the narrator is happy
> with the feat, it becomes a part of that deity's mythology for that
> particular group. As narrator I've added 'Vinga Frees the Slaves' as a
> myth for ours after a successful Divine Intervention ("You want help?
> Remember this, and help yourself.")
Meaning that feats should be interpreted quite loosely, to keep the amount of feats down. I think I'm understanding the problem here...
The general concensus is, if I understand right: If every single magical action a theistic hero takes must be a feat (possibly not cemented, thus giving improv modifiers), feats are concidered loose and bendable. Thus feats lose a lot of their importance - because people are using feats for a multitude of different things, the exact list of feats a character knows isn't really important.
And now, the way I understood things originally - and probably the way I'll continue to think in:
An affinity rating represents a characters understanding of an aspect of a god - e.g. Orlanth's affinity (relationship) with combat. The higher the affinity rating, the better the character can tap into O's combat prowness, embodying the stranght of his god, doing incredible things. A thing to rember, however, is that gods are rigid, unchangeable, whereas heroes aren't. A god did only a finite amount of things before the invention of time, but heroes can always create new effects with the powers available to them. Using an affinity to create an effect does this - the narrator conciders how well the powers of the god can be used to acheive this effect (and yes, feat listings help to understand the role of the god) and then assigns an improvisational modifier to the act. However, here a character *does*not*use* a feat.
If a hero attempts to reincarnate his god doing something well-known, or defining, it'll be much easier to channel the god's essence into an effect. A feat describes a certain action taken by a god, under certain circumstances, and allows the character to relive the situation. In a case like this, no improvisational modifiers are used, because the character isn't improvising.
Initiates can draw upon the powers of their god to create magical effects. However, they aren't devoted to their god, and don't attempt to reincarnate it. Thus, they can't learn feats - they can learn the myths, but won't learn how to let the essence of their god take over their actions. This is something restricted to devotees, but they still rely a great deal on affinity-magic.
Using feats is very demanding - the circumstances must be just right. If someone wants to recreate the incredible Orlanth made in [insert myth] right at sunset, but the sun isn't setting, the mythical energies won't channel. If a devotee attempts to spray an enemy with a gout of flame, recounting the time when Yelmalio faced [insert darkness god] in [insert myth], but he's facing a water god instead, the feat won't work. Likewise, if the myth talks about Yelmalio brandishing a sword covered in bright flames, the devotee must have a sword, and can only use the feat to cover a sword with flames, not create a sword-shaped flame out of thin air.
The name of the feat is just the name of the feat - it doesn't contain all the information of the feat. So, yes, Fireblade could mean either possibility, but only one of them. The feat contains much more information.
End IMG description.
Reading the rulebook, it says that initiates can't learn feats - how could initiates then create magic? (Concidering that players create the feats, characters remember them)
Graham Robinson wrote:
>> Further evidence: Why does Vangath have the >> "avoid lightning" feat, if the same effect could >> be acheived with the "aerial maneuvering" feat?
Exactly - people should use feats for what they are meant for. Rules-wise, assigning an improvisational modifier to a feat gives the same effect as assigning it to an affinity, so this is really just a matter of which word to use. I wouldn't give a devotee who knows AM but doesn't know AL any less modifiers than an initiate in attempting to avoid lightning.
>> Of course, Orlanth Adventurous devotees could use the "Lift Objects >> with Wind" -feat to acheive everything Vangath devotees can,
Agh, I suppose my irony wasn't too clear in written form. See above.
David Dunham wrote:
> I'm not going to argue Fireblade, but I do know that almost every
> feat I've thought about can be used both to augment or to do
> something (Swordhelp is the exception that always comes to mind).
Augmenting versus giving a bonus versus using on it's own can be jsut game mechanics. Whether you use the Great Leap feat on it's own or use it to give a bonus to your Jump skill doesn't matter myth-wise. Using swordhelp to augment or to give a bonus doesn't matter, unless the myth emphasises the finesse of the strike (bonus) or the power of the strike (edge). IMO.
> >Well, if you're using improvisation modifiers, why tie it to
> >a feat? Why not simply use the Wind Affinity?
> Because you don't use raw affinities to get an effect. You need to
> use a feat (even it's improvised).
I simply disagree here. HW p183: "Initiates may not learn feats or the secret of their god." How should initiates use magic then?
I did now notice the example of Barntar the Plowman in chapter five. I agree that using feats most of the time is a valid option - I just don't like it. The character could well use the Farming affinity though - especially because moving rocks out of the way is part of farming, and the Plow Field feat helps to focus the role of Barntar into supporting actions like this.
> There's a difference between using a loosely defined feat in a
> flexible way, and improvising from a very broadly defined affinity.
I prefer the latter - it emphasizes how player characters aren't tied down like gods are.
> >One couldn't use a Salmon Jump feat on dry ground, but could well
> >improvise a magnificent leap from one's movement affinity?
> Actually, I don't see why you couldn't. I think you're falling into
> the trap Roderick mentioned of reading too much into the feat names.
> (I think this was a specific feat listed in Irish sagas, and there
> was never any mention of needing to be in water.)
Sorry, I should have elaborated. To my knowledge the Salmon Jump feat described leaping up a waterfall, gathering speed swimming before the jump. In this case, water would most definately be necessary. If it were something along the lines Mikko knew it, water would be irrelevant or even hindering.
Olli Kantola wrote:
> > affinity, but still, they're just specialised feats, and shouldn't
> > replace the affinity. Not knowing the Burst Of Speed
> > feat shouldn't effect your ability to improvise a magically enhanced
> > dodge, should it? Example:
> They shouldn't do that, but IMO the Burst of Speed defines the difficulty
> for the dodging feat. It doesn't matter wether you know it or not, but the
> fact that OA has the Burst of Speed should set an example of the types of
> feats that are suitable for OA.
I agree completely - feats and myths describe the abilities of the god, but don't need to be all the god's powers can acheive.
Thom Baguley wrote:
> >"Um, well, I'll use my 'mile javelin throw' feat to propel my words
> >far away. Thus I can shout loud enough for them to hear me."
> Feats should always be interpreted within affinities. A combat feat
> should be used for a combat related thing. I might possibly, maybe
> allow "I scream forth a javelin of sound at my enemy" with a hefty
> improv penalty.
Correct. My bad. It's desperate trying to come up with lots of good examples ;)
Couldn't I use a hero point now, to up my Convince Blasphemers skill to a critical success? =)))
-B
Good god, I was supposed to study for an exam. And I'm all out of Hero Points!
Powered by hypermail