Re: Digest Number 105

From: Jonas Schiött <jonas.schiott_at_...>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:33:41 +0200

David Dunham:
>>still, starting at
>>the suggested power levels, you need a couple of RW years of dedicated
>>gaming before you actually get to learn them. How cool are you gonna
>>think they are by then?
>At least one member of the design team believes that heroes will
>advance far quicker than this by means of heroquesting.

Riiiggght. Let's hope some more examples of heroquests show up then. At the moment this is fairly vague.

Timothy Byrd:
>Am I calculating something incorrectly?

No... except that you're counting "Both Marginal Defeat" as a tie. In contests where only the actor's result counts (like enhancements...) this is really a defeat.

Alex Ferguson:
>> But why should that be pointless then? Sorry, but I don't follow. A
>> target number of 19 _differing_ from a 20 is very desirable, not pointless.
>And as I've pointed out: the same rule _simultaneously_ obliterates
>the distinction between 20, and 1W, which without the '20 rule',
>_would_ have been different. So to return to my original question, why

I think 1w is slightly more effective in contests against other values that have exactly one mastery - they don't get all those criticals anymore. And as someone else said, +1 AP. Not a _lot_ of difference, but increasing an ability by 1 never is. That's why I want enhancements to work better. :-)

While we're on enhancements, have you noticed the latest errata change? A while back, some of us discussed the optional contact modifier on p.231 and how it made +1 augments automatic. I felt this was strange, since if it applied to all (magical) augmentations that's a pretty significant fact to be buried at the back of the book. Now there's an errata: the rule should read "enhancements" instead of "augmentations". :-) Which doesn't change the point of the rule we were interested in... Sure, I'm always happy to see terminological confusion cleared up, but why limit it to this one case? Why not take a hard look at p.133-4, which is the real culprit?

Jonas Schiött

Powered by hypermail