I would tend to back this - we tend to end up with 3-4 HP per session and, after a safety pool of at least 1-3 HP for getting out of tight fixes is factored in, we probably end up increasing either an affinity or close combat and then one or two other skills related to the episode. The former tend to insure survival and success from episode to episode, the latter to round the character.
We have a fairly mixed group, in fact recent additions to our group mean that for a given session only one or two heros out of six are actually warriors. However people who are not warriors tend to have a primary affinity or skill that defines their hero.
I suspect that in Hero Wars you need to decide on your style of play - are you worried about 'realism' or are you worried about heroic stories.
I like the fact that you can increase all of the named feats, weapons in an affinity or group skill because it encourages players to try new approaches to describing their bids or actions - if we increase individual sub-members I worry we will end up not with combat 17 (swordhelp + 4, overbear foe + 3, lightning sword + 2, salmon leap +3, thunderous blow +3, shield jump +4) but with combat 17( swordhelp +13). The mechanics would stop encouraging players to be inventive, because they would be penalised for it. Now it may be that fits your style your vision is of a world where Grudny is known for his use of the Swordhelp feat, but for me in play it gets a little boring 'Grudny augments with his sword help - again' compared to 'which feat will Grudny tru this time - hmmm is ther a boulder nearby...'
Maybe this would be better as an optional rule for more 'gritty' campaigns then people can find a level that suits them.
However I could be in a minority and I alwyas belive in embracing change whenit comes rather than being a stick-in-the-mud.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail