Nope. In Greg's scheme, the basic ability is 1w, because that is the standard for someone who can make a standard living out of it. If you have less than 1w in any ability you are more or less inexperienced. The standard rating for stuff you don't have a clue about is 6. The standard rating for stuff you know but aren't good at is 12.
>So every Heortling Orlanthi has Spear and Shield
>at 12. If they're facing a swordsman with 1W, are they facing a rare
>superhero or champion?
I suppose you mean in my game? IMHW, 12-14 or so is the "make a standard living out of it" rating. 1w is the rating of someone who has risen above the human norm (not the human max, mind you).
>Well, they have a 12% chance of biding high and
>defeating him in an extended contest, so I guess not.
No? If you only have a 12% chance, it means your opponent is roughly 8 times better than you. That's not a hefty gap in relative prowess?
>You seem to have taken the word "mastery" to mean something that it
>doesn't.
Possibly. I just think that gaining a mastery should mean something akin to mastering an ability.
>If you want to be able to use the game stats in any supplements or
>scenarios, then you should try to realise how the game system works, or
>you'll pave a difficult road for yourself.
Oh, i now realize that i've (almost willfully) misinterpreted HW all this time. Woe is me. Rescaling stats to an appropriate level is of course beyond my feeble wits.
Please, Philip, if you want to insult/irritate me you can do better than that (and, hopefully, in private email).
-- - Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]
Powered by hypermail