> > I take the conversation in flight, but if I
> understand
> > right, you disagree with the Rune used for Battle,
> why
> > more than one version did not exist?
> > Say for humakti, combat is perhaps linked to death
> and
> > storm, while for Zorak Zoran worshipper, it is
> linked
> > to death and darkness.
>
> Yes, you are quite right, and basically that's how
> it's done. My
> complaint is only a very small one (on this
> subject...), that they
> are all called 'Combat', and that it looks as though
> they are all
> related. A player trying to Improvise a Feat and
> looking for
> inspiration would be justified in thinking he could
> improvise one
> Combat Feat from another Combat Affinity. It's just
> a matter of
> terminology, but a minor irritation. They could have
> been called
> 'Warrior', 'Fyrdwomen', 'Swordsman', 'Battlebeast',
> etc. for variety
> ('Battlebeast' would be my choice for Urox - it's
> also a magical
> creature in our Live RolePlaying campaign - I've
> played the part once
> :).
>
OK, but you can have specification of ayour combat
style, and in the end, if you fight, you made a
combat.
Even if you are a worshipper of Yinkin or Humakt. But
it's real that new name for common affinity would be
nice, what about some project on doing this?
> Wulf
>
>
Powered by hypermail