>V3 is "better" than V1 and V2, because masteries are already
>cancealed. But V3 is really a bad fighter (19), comparing with V1
>(10W). I could imagine some contextual explanations to the abstract
>values, but, in fact, it seems to me a bit 'unfair', specially if
>V1, V2 and V3 are PC's.
You miss the point. The original example was :
Harold 5W2
V1 10W
V2 5W
V3 19
So Harald makes a single roll, but his skill differs : he's at 19 against V1 and V2 and 19W against V3. Lets assume he rolls a nine, and all the villains roll a 7. Against V1 that's a success v. a success, but V1 rolled lower. Marginal Victory for V1. Against V2 that's a success vs. a fail. Minor Victory for Harold. Against V3 that's a *critical* (bumped up by the mastery) vs. a success. Another minor victory for Harold.
Now, I wouldn't allow this at all. I'd rule that Harold loses his 6 points (leaving him at 19W). V1 as the highest number would make the roll, but augmented by V2 and V3, for a total of +5. So that would be 19 vs 15. *Or* I would make each attack a seperate roll (5W vs. 10, 2W vs. 5, 19W vs. 19).
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail