From the Gary Gygax Mailing List: Hail, Adepts! From: LejendLord@aol.com Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 6:05 PM [snip] >Yes, the lower Ranked Avatars will vary greatly, as will (naturally) the >Unordered Avatars. This is just a general conversion system; more important >characters will be dealt with in more depth and with greater variety within >each character. In the case of the City State the Overlord will be dealt with>in depth as much as will locals at the Prancing Ki-Rin; but simple guards >won't be dealt with in intensive detail... Okay, and I understand. Seems you have a good handle on this. Much appreciate the effort:) >Also, this is all just for NAC's; PLAYERS will use these conversions simply >as general guidelines for converting their characters... why impede a >player's creativity? Game systems are supposed to facilitate creativity, not>hinder it... or at the very least stay out of the way! :)
Again, this is fine. The LM for the game can assist--and he or she will need some assistance and guidelines too (^_^). >>Thus, a 28th level AD&D Wizard would have an Enchantment score of base >>131 +2 (7) = 145. >> >>This seems to work fairly well, but I would *stop* adding to Enchantment >>score, and begin adding to other Abilities not increased due to Order, so as>>to make the Avatar more rounded. > >Oh, as to the other, non-Initial abilities I was going to use the following >general formulae (untested in play as yet, still in development).
Regardless, I would *not* add to the points beyond 131, save perhaps by 0-3 (d4-1). If the LM, or the player, wishes to build above that point, then expend Merits accordingly. >Determine Base Ratings (Humans only at this time): > >Health = (Constitution + Strength + Wisdom) >Total BR >9 to 15 40+d10 >16 to 25 45+d10 >26 to 35 50+d10 >36 to 45 55+d10 >46 to 50 60+d10 >50+ 65+d5
Seems okay. >Precision = (Dexterity + Strength + Intelligence) >Total BR >9 to 15 20+d10 >16 to 25 25+d10 >26 to 35 30+d10 >36 to 45 35+d10 >46 to 50 40+d10 >50+ 45+d5
Too low, I believe. Up the base by 5, so to run from 25 +d10 to 50 + d5. >Speed = (Dexterity + Intelligence) >Total BR >6 to 10 8 >11 to 15 8.5 >16 to 20 9 >21 to 25 9.5 >26 to 30 10 >31 or 32 10.5 >33 or 34 11 >35 11.5 >36+ 12
Suggest you add one (1) to those bases and have a variable of .5 points added as follows: d4, 1 = 0, 2 = .5. 3 = 1, 4 = 1.5 >Compare to base 100 points > >Then add a total number of BR points to the Avatar equal to the level of the >character (one level per Heath point, 1.5 levels per Precision point and >three levels per Speed point).
Nah. I think your base tables cover it well, as from experience, the BRs you arrive at by the above methods seem about right for even experienced Avatars. >Choose other abilities as per NAC concept/class/kit, order them as >appropriate, and then base their current scores on a scale as calculated by >the following: > >Compare the Initial Ability with the appropriate Base Rating; determine an >"improvement index", which is the BR divided by the IA. Determine appropriate>scores for the other Abilities by using the Base Totals and multiplying by >the % initial rating (per Second, Third, and Fourth pick, etc.). Multiply >each skill by the "improvement index" and add/subtract d10. For example: > >Say that an NAC Elementalist has Geourgy at 86, which is (naturally) his >Initial Ability (based upon a Speed BR of 11, and initial Geourgy score of >44, or a total Improvement Index of x1.95. I decide that he took Weapons as >his Second Ability (80% of BR Precision 30) with an initial Weapons ability >of 24, multiplied by the Improvement Index of 1.95 equals 47, +/-d10 (roll 2 >d10, one is plus, one is minus; in this case, +7, -9 for a total of -2) with >a current Weapons ability of 45.
The BR assumptions are too low, and the improvement index is too high. Experience tells me that no player so far has been even in keeping up with all Abilities. A couple are improved assiduously, the rest tend to languish. >Of course, MOST NAC's will not have developed ALL abilities EQUALLY; this is>just a general gauge to use for base-line considerations. Possibly I'll >subtract a further d5 from each other ability in descending order of >importance to the NAC (-1d5 for the second ability, -2d5 for the third, -3d5>for the fourth and -5d5 for the fifth and subsequent abilities).
More on target, methinks:) >All has as yet to be tested in play... Am most interested in your work here, James, so do please keep me (and all) posted! Cheerio, Gary |
|
|