Er, right. Keep taking the medication, Benedict!
I have a lot of sympathy for the 'Ability ratings are logarithmic' camp. Total snafus like adding ability ratings, or halving them can lead to appalingly innapropriate results. However I think there are grey areas where small proportional modifiers are acceptable if the alternative is yet another table. Worse yet, a table based on obscure mathematical principles, that are unfathomable to mere mortals.
Ok, +1 per 10 breaks down a little at the top end, but even if you're augmenting with a w3 ability, that's still only a modifier of +7 or +8. That's big, but not to a system breaking extent, by any means.
If i were to argue for a more proportionate modifier system, I'd make the modifier depend on the relationship between the augmenting and augmented ability. We've covered this ground before, but frankly I think the game works as-is.
Also, I see no reason why the GM couldn't adjust the modifier ratio throughout the life of a campaign. Set a +1 per 5 ratio at the beginning of the campaign, and when everyone has an ability over w2 change it to =1 per 10, and maybe even change it to +1 per 20 when all the heroes are over w5 in their best abilities.
Maybe it's not realistic, but if it works, frankly, I'd rarther do this than use log tables.
Powered by hypermail