><With one Mastery, and no
><resistance, you don't fumble (a fumble is bumped to a failure).
etc...
>A very clear example- thanks a lot Wulf !! I can see now, how my attempt to
>change the meaning of masteries was wrong.
Remember, as mentioned elsewhere, these apply only to unopposed ability checks. Almost anything worth rolling for will have a resistance, and so failures and fumbles are possible. But the above does apply to estimating 'raw skill'.
><it's also in favour of Uz, Aldryami,
><Minotaurs (well, MY Minotaur) and every other player character <race.
>
>I would really like to see that(your´s) Minotaur, would you like to post it
>?!!
He's never been properly, fully converted from RQ - he was created in RQ2 (maybe even RQ1...) and run as a character for about 15 years. The intention is to run him a bit like Godzilla - less of a character than a force of nature! I may only detail him in the leader format from Barbarian Adventures.
>So how about, trying to make up some tables, with help of the group, for
>modifying creatures and designing your own?!
Remember that any animal can augment with it's other abilities. An eagle will effectively ambush, using it's claws (augmented by 'Fly Fast' or whatever it's got - still haven't found Anaxial's) only after it's effectively beaten it's prey. Generally speaking, I think you have increased the numbers too much - I wouldn't add more than a single mastery to more than a handful of examples.
For example:
>The same with strength.
>15m giant15W2[10W6]
How strong is the True Dragon in Anaxial's? (I still can't find mine). An elephant cannot be near that strength. The point of the mastery scale is to cut the numbers down. That giant would automatically crit on every roll against a character with less than 3 masteries, and would begin any Extended Contest with 130 AP (even before any augments).
Wulf
Powered by hypermail