> > > [Dave Bailey] At the risk of reversing the standard "rolling
> > low is
> > > good" you could divide a successful roll by 5 (round down) and
> > treat that as
> > > the augmentation value, teat a mastery as an automatic +4. e.g.
> > roll of 10
> > > with a skill of 10w would give you +6.
> > I considered the same idea, except using the degree of success/5.
> > Therefore, roll 2 on an ability of 17 makes 15 success, +6
> > Bonus. So you still roll low. And for masteries, just treat each
> > another 20 success. However, I did think this a bit easy, as
> > ability you get an automatic augment. Maybe a 20 is always a
> > even with masteries?
> [Dave Bailey] Seems to me the above would result in a lot
> edges/bonuses which would cancel each other out anyway
Not sure what you're saying. My idea is exactly the same as yours,
except I roll low and use the degree of success, you roll high and
use the rolled number. Or are you saying you have to roll the numeric
ability (without masteries)? That would be unfair on a 2W2 ability,
against say a 17 ability).
Of course, you may just be commenting on the entire idea of flexible
augments, in which case I agree, there will be higher numbers
cancelling out, but still there should be a chance for the
'invisible' resistance to win with either of our systems.
Powered by hypermail