>
> 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.
>
>
> Simon Hibbs
I'm not heavy on maths but the little I have shows me some of the
problems, and because I am less a narrative player I like to see
suggestions to make it better. I do agree however that more tables
are not good.
Looking at the suggestions so far, for ease of use, (Rating-10)/5
seems like a nice compromise. It means new skill levels at 13 will
give you +1, and 5w will give you +3. It seems to hold reasonably
well up into the w3 area compared to rolling for augments.
Another option, purely for effect, would be to continue using 1/10th
on the mundane plane and 1/5th on the hero planes.
I also heartily recommend, as suggested, that you broaden your range
of "cannot possibly fail" to avoid excessive rolls.