> Exactly! The rules don't give us any reason to
> believe that a feat from a devotee is in any way
> better than that of a common magic guy.
I believe the intention is that common magic is very specific and very low-level. "Cure nettle sting", not "heal injury". I agree that this is not well described, nor easy to quantify. Personally I would allow "cure nettle sting" to cure other stings, at a modifier, but I'd never allow "heal injury" to be common magic in the first place.
Personally I emphasize this, because I like it this way. Those little nitty-gritty bits of colour add a lot to a campaign, esp. when intelligently used, and they contrast nicely with the Big Stuff.
> Also, it
> looks like the best way to be a hero is to be an
> initiate (or some level) and keep your talents/common
> magic... because then you have freedom to do your own
> thing.
It's a real shame that the published NPCs were pre-HQ, and so we have no idea if they were concentrated or not, because the concept didn't exist then.
> No one becomes a god by being a disciple of a
> god. Discipleship is for people with no imagination.
I'm not quite sure I agree with that. It seems to me to be for people willing to limit their personal freedom of choice for what they see as a greater good. They may well be able to imagine all sorts of interesting things to do that as disciples are impossible for them.
> That's why you can't be a king if you're a disciple.
> You have to be an initiate of two gods...
I do not agree that kings have to have imagination, but the rest follows, yes.
Powered by hypermail