>Remember, when Joe2 fights Joe3, Joe3's rolls of 18 and 19 are only
>bumped to success, not critical, and 20 to failure. The bumps are
>important. I don't see any non-linearity in the results at all.
>Higher skills are always better, according to my deterministic
>calculator.
Yes, but because of the way the Extended Contest Table is constructed (same difference in degrees of success can give different results) there are situations where you might theoretically reach the end result _faster_ if you have a higher skill.
This is marginal because a) the lower-skill guy is guaranteed to lose anyway, b) the higher-skill guy can just stake enough AP to make the point moot, and c) why is this being handled as an extended contest in the first place?
Powered by hypermail