I'd far rather the different levels not be a progression of numerical limits. First of all, I don't think they progress like that. The closest is Initiate to Devotee. The West doesn't have that (only Wizard to Magus seems likely). Shaman isn't just an "advanced practitioner" in my view.
I far prefer the idea of *different* abilities at the new level. Possibly including the previous ones, but not necessarily.
The previous model (flawed though we find it) did get that right. The Initiates can do X with the affinities, and Devotees can do Y. I'd prefer to see it stay along those lines, rather than numerical limits.
Best,
LC
On July 16, 2007 11:41 am, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> And I'm opposed to upper limits of this kind - why should someone be
> *forced* to advance to to a "higher" level to improve an ability? (Same
> question for the "You can't raise mundane abiltiies above X" crowd). I want
> to play a really skilled Initiate, not a Devotee. heck, I'd be forced to
> give up my fetishes and spells if I had to become a Devotee! (This is
> where "Game" *will* trump "Rules" IMG if limits are impposed)
Powered by hypermail