Roderick
Oh pish-tosh, it was a counter-twit responding to your hyperbole. >>
I am won over by Rodericks excellent rebuttal here. I like "counter-twit", a godlearner name for a "foolproof" battle magic spell.
The argument as a whole is interesting and I can see the problems with all views. My own solution (not that it has been relevant in my game yet as no one has very high wibble count) is to only allow the best augment. Thus, in Wesley's example the best augment is 10, the augment is 10. If there were fifty augments and they were all ten this would not be a 500point augment, but a 10 point augment. One flaw is that, in theory, a devotee could go on improvising feats until he scored a critical and got a double augment. I rule that any penalties accrued from failures and fumbles (which I generally apply to the augmenting ability) are cumulative, unlike bonuses, and therefore a player going for high augments risks a whole load of (cumulative) problems. Those opting for auto-augments get the result they want (using only one ability, their best augment) with no risk but with no time wasted rolling repeately.
In summary, can augment as many times as you like (one attempt per ability, feat, spell), but can only apply the best result, while any penalties accrued are cumulative, in that they are all applied.
I think this kind of ties in with Peter's natural limit of imagination idea, it avoids unexciting powering up, (it could result in double or quits inflation where a desperate character tries to go for a risky high augment to overcome all the problems he has already got).
Please rip this idea to shreds if it deserves it.
Keith
Powered by hypermail