> From: "Jeff" <jeff.kyer_at_...>
> >
> > > From: "Tim Ellis" <tim_at_t...>
> >
> > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > Humakt's Death secret is the only one I can think of myself,
> without
> > > having the books to hand
> >
> > But that's a _secret_ (of which there are several that work in that
> > way), not a feat, which I assume is specifically what DD was after.
> >
> >
> > What I can't help but wonder is, is the distinction between a feat
> > and a theistic secret a genuinely narrative one, or is it *makes
> > sign of warding* primarily a game-world thing?
>
> Thunderbolt. I think that it was the only way to do an all-or-nothing
> sort of attack withouth making it totally overwhelmingly cheezy.
But that's a Secret, not a Feat. (If memory and HW:RiG serve: don't have Thunder Rebels immediately to hand...)
> Good old fashioned "Save or die" is all very well and good but if
> there's no down-side to trying to use a secret that's that GOOD, then
> there's no reason NOT to use it.
Actually the down-sides are several (Jonas just mentioned two, the first of which would be more correctly stated as "you have to make an increasingly large "minimum bid" in order to get the "special effect" -- and in this case, the upside is relatively modest.
My central point, though, is: Secrets are very narrow, and "gamemechanicky"; Feats are broad (if not vague), and "narrativeish". Isn't this sharp division, on a _gameworld_ distinction, rather than on a narrative-driven basis, somewhat odd?
Powered by hypermail