That should have been "rating". Help, it's raining keywords! No, hang on, let's catch them!
>> one thing that bothers me is rating
>> escalation.
>> Let's say you have a starting character with 7w in his main ability, and
>> in some contest he manages to get 5 of his 17 ratings to apply, giving
>> him
>> +10 (half a mastery) for a rating of 17w.
>> If that same character had a keyword of 17w3 and a main ability of 7w4,
>> he'd get 5x+8, or two whole masteries added to his main rating, for 7w6.
>> Since I'm considering running a high-ish power game (where double or
>> triple masteries in keywords is standard for pcs), this worries me.
>> Should
>> I be worried?
>
> I don't think so. Put this hero (for that's what he is with those
> ratings)
> up against a Shadow Dragon, and see how he fares. I think 6 masteries is
> about where a hero should be with augments. Just remember that the 6
> mastery
> demigod will wipe the floor with him with his augments.
The problem for me is the variation between ability this produces. In a beginning campaign, you know what player's abilities are, and that they will vary from the listed values by up to a mastery say. Take a high level campaign, and the task-by-task variation in player ability might be 1-3 masteries - that would seem to change play quite a bit. It also means that the higher you go, the more variation there is - that 6 mastery demigod himself will vary quite a bit too, and a 9 mastery character even more, so being able to guage what kind of tasks players should be able to achieve becomes very difficult - unpredictable. I think, anyway.
Darren
Powered by hypermail