Quoting "L.Castellucci" <lightcastle_at_nxk1I5gMMJ77oBf0wwfrM4_K4ktvOdN92DxLvKpy_Pp-sifoHpSFXZZM6NjvbvgrMNuxjZyEtC0cv6XRUlMAdQ.yahoo.invalid>:
> I'm 100% with RR here.
As am I.
> 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)
>
Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Powered by hypermail