|
Post by mandene on Sept 5, 2018 12:24:34 GMT -5
Hello, Can anybody help me to understand why Fortitude Save failure? [CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Sep 4 20:39:11] Sergei L : Reflex Save : *success* : (4 + 17 = 21 vs. DC: 12) [CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Sep 4 20:39:14] Sergei L : Fortitude Save : *failure* : (1 + 27 = 28 vs. DC: 17) [CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Sep 4 20:39:20] Sergei L : Fortitude Save : *success* : (4 + 27 = 31 vs. DC: 17) [CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Sep 4 20:39:32] Sergei L : Reflex Save : *success* : (2 + 17 = 19 vs. DC: 12) [CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Sep 4 20:39:56] Sergei L : Reflex Save : *success* : (5 + 17 = 22 vs. DC: 17) You rolled a "1". In many situations "1" means automatic failure, even if your total is higher than the DC. In opposit, a roll of "20" is automatic success, no matter if your total result is below the DC. (The exception to this is when you use a "take 20", then it's not an automatic success)
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Sept 5, 2018 14:27:02 GMT -5
You rolled a "1". In many situations "1" means automatic failure Thanks for explanation. It is really serious issue. It means, character can fail even if he is invested to characteristic a lot of and has it very hight.
You're welcome
It's there so that nobody is perfect. Even the best of the best can fumble and fail miserably.
On a good day someone can outsmart a wizard, or lift a boulder higher than the strongest person around.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Sept 5, 2018 19:17:33 GMT -5
One time 6th level Slate beat an epic RDD in an arm wrestling match. True story.
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Sept 5, 2018 19:56:29 GMT -5
One time 6th level Slate beat an epic RDD in an arm wrestling match. True story. Just wanting to say this isn't a D&D rules thing or even NWN mechanics so that folks that aren't aware don't feel obligated (in this case Sergeil who wasn't aware of auto fail on saving throws) to put their characters into such a situation if they don't believe it makes sense to. Ability scores and skills are not subject to 1 is auto-fail and 20 natural success by the rules. The above example is pretty much for fun, even if the situations it causes can make you question immersion of how such happened at times and it is subject to all players agreeing to an incorrect interpretation of the rules for whatever the fun might be at the time. I whole heartily endorse if getting a low roll roleplaying such out as not being as good as it could have been, perhaps having underestimated the sudden force the weaker character you're knocked slightly off-balance and take longer and have a harder time beating them then you otherwise would have. I'm basically saying it doesn't need to be an auto-win or lose situation unless you agree for it to be before hand. (Except where attack rolls and Saving throws are, they're auto-fail/success).
This isn't really the place for discussions, I just wanted to make it clear that such uses of ability scores (and skills) are pretty much subject to all parties agreeing with such preferably before the ability check is even rolled and anyone that doesn't can choose to ignore it or react how they see fit. (Though in terms of things like Greengrass and Midsummer games meant for fun, by participating in such a game you're agreeing to the rules that should be listed ahead of time when you take part).
For anyone that's interested in more info on the matter, I highly suggest reading Munroe personal take on it over at the following DM:Q&A (remember it's a DM Q&A not a discussion thread though) as it's rather thought provoking. frc.proboards.com/post/297347/thread
FM.
|
|
|
Post by grivel on Sept 5, 2018 20:05:53 GMT -5
Thanks for explanation. It is really serious issue. It means, character can fail even if he is invested to characteristic a lot of and has it very hight. On a good day someone can outsmart a wizard, or lift a boulder higher than the strongest person around.
Case in point, Kali won the strength competition by rolling a natural 20 twice. She only had a 2 bonus against a DC of 20
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Sept 6, 2018 1:17:59 GMT -5
If for crafting "roll 20" work as descripted here, I have 0.05 (5%) probability to create item with very high, but not infinity DC, even if my crafting skill is near to zero. As far as I know, automatic success and failure on 20s and 1s ONLY apply to attack rolls and saving throws in the NWN engine. Skill checks, including crafting, don't work like that.
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Sept 6, 2018 1:29:48 GMT -5
If for crafting "roll 20" work as descripted here, I have 0.05 (5%) probability to create item with very high, but not infinity DC, even if my crafting skill is near to zero. As far as I know, automatic success and failure on 20s and 1s ONLY apply to attack rolls and saving throws in the NWN engine. Skill checks, including crafting, don't work like that. This is correct. The 1 and 20 rule is designed for sheer dumb luck and bad luck in combat.
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Sept 6, 2018 4:48:28 GMT -5
I know from personal experience in crafting poisons that if your skill is sufficient a roll of 1 is not a failure.
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Sept 6, 2018 10:33:08 GMT -5
Greetings Cormytes,
I'm creating this thread to house the saving through / attack roll / skill check discussion that brewed in the Not So Instant request thread.
Further discussion can be held here.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 6, 2018 12:10:29 GMT -5
DISCLAIMER: This is my personal opinion, and mine alone. It has no bearing, relevance, impact, or influence with FRC operation, DM Team, Build Team, or Administration Team.
NWN, and the parent concept, D&D, are at their core in regards to combat, a numbers game. Where the objective(in situations void of DM oversight, an advent brought on specifically by NWN servers), is to make your numbers bigger so you can survive/win the encounter. I've played D&D for 30+ years, played every edition that exists, including Pathfinder. It always been my experience, from that very lengthy real world participation, that DMs only include the auto-fail if they are meaning to run a purposefully more difficult, or hardcore campaign. Now yes, certainly in NWN it can be argued to provide players a 5% chance to succeed at something in combat against a significantly stronger enemy they otherwise could not overcome. This is of course dependent on the server mentality itself. The autofailure rule, is entirely optional with all cases, and in NWN can be turned on or off, as can the autosuccess on 20 rule. It is an odd inclusion, in my sole opinion on servers that discourage power-leveling, or rapid advancement as players can use the 5% chance to their advantage to win an encounter they should not be attempting based on intended level of an area/encounter and receive rewards they were not intended to have until later in progression, as well, it punishes much more advanced characters who despite a clear ability to beat/win an encounter, they still are forced to fail for reasons unexplained but by OOC mechanical rule. Again, a very odd occurrence where the case of RP servers are concerned. How do you explain IC why 5% of the time a spell or something similar affects you when it otherwise does not? I am curious how the playerbase feels at large. Should NWN be viewed/treated as a D&D emulator, and run more on the side of things being fair and balanced, or more like how D&D games actually go, generally, and have some things that normally would be waived by most DMs at a table, like autofailure on 1 despite beating a save, be changed from current operation?
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Sept 6, 2018 12:16:03 GMT -5
It's there so that nobody is perfect. Even the best of the best can fumble and fail miserably. It is yet another reason to hunt in team. Even if you die because miss of luck, your party member can rescue you. <iframe width="22.440000000000055" height="4.97999999999999" style="position: absolute; width: 22.440000000000055px; height: 4.97999999999999px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_86183050" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.440000000000055" height="4.97999999999999" style="position: absolute; width: 22.44px; height: 4.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1063px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_43669987" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.440000000000055" height="4.97999999999999" style="position: absolute; width: 22.44px; height: 4.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 188px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_16857021" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="22.440000000000055" height="4.97999999999999" style="position: absolute; width: 22.44px; height: 4.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1063px; top: 188px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_5302616" scrolling="no"></iframe> Yep. Was soloing my first time running into a cockatrice. It managed to hit me, I blew the save, and I sat there watching it try to finish the job (it still needed a 20 to hit to do d4-2 damage, and I still had over 100 hp to go). Fortunately, after a little while a DM logged on and was able to answer my plea to just kill me.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Sept 6, 2018 12:53:07 GMT -5
How do you explain IC why 5% of the time a spell or something similar affects you when it otherwise does not? Luck (either really bad on my part or really good on theirs). Minor wild magic surge. I was momentarily distracted, giving that mind-affecting spell a way in. The gorgon breathed just as I was inhaling. Pretty much the same way I explain getting hit in combat when my AC is more than 20 points higher than my opponent's attack roll. Most of my playing experience from 2E to 3.5E used automatic failures and successes. I don't remember ever using it in 1E, but that might be because a 20 wasn't an automatic hit in combat, either. Played several other rules systems as well... some had automatic successes and failures, some didn't. Personally, I'm fine with the rule on saving throws... but then, my own history as a D&D player differs from yours in that I consider it the norm.
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Sept 6, 2018 13:10:02 GMT -5
One time 6th level Slate beat an epic RDD in an arm wrestling match. True story. Just wanting to say this isn't a D&D rules thing or even NWN mechanics so that folks that aren't aware don't feel obligated (in this case Sergeil who wasn't aware of auto fail on saving throws) to put their characters into such a situation if they don't believe it makes sense to. Ability scores and skills are not subject to 1 is auto-fail and 20 natural success by the rules. The above example is pretty much for fun, even if the situations it causes can make you question immersion of how such happened at times and it is subject to all players agreeing to an incorrect interpretation of the rules for whatever the fun might be at the time. I whole heartily endorse if getting a low roll roleplaying such out as not being as good as it could have been, perhaps having underestimated the sudden force the weaker character you're knocked slightly off-balance and take longer and have a harder time beating them then you otherwise would have. I'm basically saying it doesn't need to be an auto-win or lose situation unless you agree for it to be before hand. (Except where attack rolls and Saving throws are, they're auto-fail/success).
This isn't really the place for discussions, I just wanted to make it clear that such uses of ability scores (and skills) are pretty much subject to all parties agreeing with such preferably before the ability check is even rolled and anyone that doesn't can choose to ignore it or react how they see fit. (Though in terms of things like Greengrass and Midsummer games meant for fun, by participating in such a game you're agreeing to the rules that should be listed ahead of time when you take part).
For anyone that's interested in more info on the matter, I highly suggest reading Munroe personal take on it over at the following DM:Q&A (remember it's a DM Q&A not a discussion thread though) as it's rather thought provoking. frc.proboards.com/post/297347/thread
FM.
Ability (STR/CHA/CON etc) should have auto-failure on one's and subject to it. Skills (Perform, Taunt, etc) are not subject to auto-one's. Or has something changed?
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Sept 6, 2018 13:22:23 GMT -5
Ability (STR/CHA/CON etc) should have auto-failure on one's and subject to it. Skills (Perform, Taunt, etc) are not subject to auto-one's. Or has something changed? System hasn't changed. Just making folk whom don't know it more aware. On ability notes: saving throws and attack rolls follow 1 and 20. I do not believe ability checks do. Though i know few things outside of rp rolling that call for such checks within nwn.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 6, 2018 13:28:45 GMT -5
Ability (STR/CHA/CON etc) should have auto-failure on one's and subject to it. Skills (Perform, Taunt, etc) are not subject to auto-one's. Or has something changed? System hasn't changed. Just making folk whom don't know it more aware. On ability notes: saving throws and attack rolls follow 1 and 20. I do not believe ability checks do. Though i know few things outside of rp rolling that call for such checks within nwn. Mechanicly saving throws, and only saving throws, follow 1 and 20 for autofail/success. Also yea no change on the system, just me trying to clarify any misinformation and offer a transparent look at what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 6, 2018 13:34:16 GMT -5
How do you explain IC why 5% of the time a spell or something similar affects you when it otherwise does not? Luck (either really bad on my part or really good on theirs). Minor wild magic surge. I was momentarily distracted, giving that mind-affecting spell a way in. The gorgon breathed just as I was inhaling. Pretty much the same way I explain getting hit in combat when my AC is more than 20 points higher than my opponent's attack roll. Most of my playing experience from 2E to 3.5E used automatic failures and successes. I don't remember ever using it in 1E, but that might be because a 20 wasn't an automatic hit in combat, either. Played several other rules systems as well... some had automatic successes and failures, some didn't. Personally, I'm fine with the rule on saving throws... but then, my own history as a D&D player differs from yours in that I consider it the norm. 100% D&D is a YMMV experience. I fully recognize and knowledge 23, 3e, and 3.5e have autofail/success rules in the book. I simply meant that in my own experience only DMs running hardcore or purposefully upping difficulty would enforce it. Believing doing so did not promote a fun environment on a general basis. Again, following my disclaimer and NOT reflective of my status as a builder or any influence/inference regarding FRC admin, build team, or DM, I have felt, and have said before, FRC should be more difficult. This correlates to my preferred tabletop D&D style. I play D&D, especially tabletop, to be challenged, and be required to think creatively and RP well, and be in kind rewarded/consequenced accordingly to how I do. I would seek out the above mentioned "hardcore unfun" games, and thoroughly enjoy them myself.
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Sept 6, 2018 13:47:58 GMT -5
What is the sourcebook that quantifies which attributes are subject to auto-1's? This is going way too far back for me to remember fully.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Sept 6, 2018 15:05:10 GMT -5
What is the sourcebook that quantifies which attributes are subject to auto-1's? This is going way too far back for me to remember fully. I would guess it is the players handbook. that said, 1's and 20's only apply to non-skills. we do get "take 20's" all the time with the heal skill out of combat, as well as "coupe de graces" with the sleep spell. which is an automatic kill, on hit. this in turn represents a very quick death, instead of a dragged out painful torture-like death, that would, in essence, be an evil act. but it essentially means 5% luck and 5% un-lucky on strikes. combined with the unseen modifiers that work beneath it all. such as attack bonuses versus blinded creatures(+2). attack bonuses vs flat-footed, (I believe +4). I believe there is a flanking bonus as well.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 6, 2018 16:08:41 GMT -5
What is the sourcebook that quantifies which attributes are subject to auto-1's? This is going way too far back for me to remember fully. I would guess it is the players handbook. that said, 1's and 20's only apply to non-skills. we do get "take 20's" all the time with the heal skill out of combat, as well as "coupe de graces" with the sleep spell. which is an automatic kill, on hit. this in turn represents a very quick death, instead of a dragged out painful torture-like death, that would, in essence, be an evil act. but it essentially means 5% luck and 5% un-lucky on strikes. combined with the unseen modifiers that work beneath it all. such as attack bonuses versus blinded creatures(+2). attack bonuses vs flat-footed, (I believe +4). I believe there is a flanking bonus as well. Player's handbook is indeed the most normal, and easiest reference source for this in each edition. 1 and 20 monikers should not be used when talking about every edition to prevent confusion and misinformation however. Not every edition treated 1 as fail and 20 as success. Flanking works in wildly different ways, if at all across editions, but is a separate discussion. The other information here is generally factual across every edition qhere such things do exist to begin with in regards to on paper zero DM interpretation rule existence. Again, this is my own opinion, has no bearing on DM, build team, or admin team opinion, or FRC as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Sept 6, 2018 17:04:39 GMT -5
I think this covers all the roll types for the game we're playing without getting all the unnecessary talk about other editions and games brought into the mix. nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Attack_roll = Yes auto-fail on 1. Yes auto-success on 20 nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Saving_throw = Yes auto-fail on 1, Yes auto-success on 20 nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Skill_check = No auto-fail on 1, No auto-success on 20 Anything else is basically open to interpretation and agreement by players involved or by someone overseeing the situation (DMs/other players acting as referee). It is likely to vary from DM to DM and from players to players.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Sept 6, 2018 20:35:51 GMT -5
I would guess it is the players handbook. that said, 1's and 20's only apply to non-skills. we do get "take 20's" all the time with the heal skill out of combat, as well as "coupe de graces" with the sleep spell. which is an automatic kill, on hit. this in turn represents a very quick death, instead of a dragged out painful torture-like death, that would, in essence, be an evil act. but it essentially means 5% luck and 5% un-lucky on strikes. combined with the unseen modifiers that work beneath it all. such as attack bonuses versus blinded creatures(+2). attack bonuses vs flat-footed, (I believe +4). I believe there is a flanking bonus as well. Player's handbook is indeed the most normal, and easiest reference source for this in each edition. 1 and 20 monikers should not be used when talking about every edition to prevent confusion and misinformation however. Not every edition treated 1 as fail and 20 as success. Flanking works in wildly different ways, if at all across editions, but is a separate discussion. The other information here is generally factual across every edition qhere such things do exist to begin with in regards to on paper zero DM interpretation rule existence. Again, this is my own opinion, has no bearing on DM, build team, or admin team opinion, or FRC as a whole. as for how mechanics work on NWN, you can see 3rd edition players handbook, that's the closest you'll get for the mechanics here.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 7, 2018 1:16:11 GMT -5
I think this covers all the roll types for the game we're playing without getting all the unnecessary talk about other editions and games brought into the mix. nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Attack_roll = Yes auto-fail on 1. Yes auto-success on 20 nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Saving_throw = Yes auto-fail on 1, Yes auto-success on 20 nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Skill_check = No auto-fail on 1, No auto-success on 20 Anything else is basically open to interpretation and agreement by players involved or by someone overseeing the situation (DMs/other players acting as referee). It is likely to vary from DM to DM and from players to players. EDM Entori What you said isn't true, the links here, and that wiki in it's entirety in regards to how NWN operates, BEFORE any specific changes FRC has done, are verbatim, and exactly how NWN operates on a mechanical level. 3rd edition and NWN are not the same, and are not a good cross-referenxe to use. the wiki is the best and most accurate resource for base level NWN mechanical operation for those interested.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Sept 7, 2018 11:38:06 GMT -5
For me, what I'm looking for is the chance to portray a character according to the concept of that character. The problem with autofail, to me, is that it creates failures against challenges that seem so trivial they shouldn't even by rights warrant a die roll, which looks to me as if the character doesn't even have the capability in that area that they do in fact have. Jacky Chan isn't going to get hit with a tennis ball lobbed underhand at a range of 40 feet in his full sight if he decides to dodge it, period. No die roll needed. I hear what people say about, "Nobody is perfect," but to me that means that everyone has a weakness, and there's always a bigger challenge. So if Jacky Chan is great in reflex saves, then you can come at him with will or fortitude challenges and expect that something will get through at DC's that are trivial to his reflex, and that as quick as he is, there are still challenges out there in the world that present a DC that even his reflex has a chance of missing. It doesn't mean he's going to get beaned with things that have no right requiring a roll.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Sept 7, 2018 11:44:53 GMT -5
Just cause Jackie Chan was mentioned, I think it's fair to show that even Jackie Chan could fail at even trivial stuff by posting this 11 minute long blooper reel.
Overall, there's gotta be a chance to fail. Cause the d20 is the dice used to determine a large portion of this, it unfortunately brings the chance to fail to 5%.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Sept 7, 2018 14:52:01 GMT -5
The D&D, and by extension the NWN, system is a lot more abstract than that. A level 20 character with 300 hp isn't able to take 20 times the number of solid blows as a 1st level character with 15; most of that is the ability to turn what would be a solid hit into a glancing blow or near miss.
Somebody rolls a 20 to hit Jackie Chan at the top of his form (full hp) with a tennis ball probably isn't actually hitting him, but is getting close enough so he has to expend at least some effort to dodge it. When Jackie is down to 20 hp or so, he's tired enough so the ball bounces off of his shoulder. At 5 hp it nails him in the forehead.
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 7, 2018 16:27:00 GMT -5
For me, what I'm looking for is the chance to portray a character according to the concept of that character. The problem with autofail, to me, is that it creates failures against challenges that seem so trivial they shouldn't even by rights warrant a die roll, which looks to me as if the character doesn't even have the capability in that area that they do in fact have. Jacky Chan isn't going to get hit with a tennis ball lobbed underhand at a range of 40 feet in his full sight if he decides to dodge it, period. No die roll needed. I hear what people say about, "Nobody is perfect," but to me that means that everyone has a weakness, and there's always a bigger challenge. So if Jacky Chan is great in reflex saves, then you can come at him with will or fortitude challenges and expect that something will get through at DC's that are trivial to his reflex, and that as quick as he is, there are still challenges out there in the world that present a DC that even his reflex has a chance of missing. It doesn't mean he's going to get beaned with things that have no right requiring a roll. I cannot express enough the level of happiness seeing this gave me. This is 1000000% how D&D should be played, viewed, and interpreted. 5% rolls while yes sure, are in the rule book, Gary Gygax himself made up the original ruleset. He made up how and what D&D is meant to be, now sure that doesn't in every way, make his word law, but his way of it should hold a great deal of credence. There is a saying amongst many long time tabletop players, "Gary Gygax made the perfect game in 1974. We've been making up rules to fix broken players ever since." As far as I'm concerned, and everyone I've enjoyed playing tabletop with in 30+ years of D&D, this has been treated as part 1 of a simple D&D gospel baseline if you will. Part 2 of said gospel, is this also said by Gary Gygax, "No rule in the ruleset is a law. All the rules are guidelines. Play the game and have fun doing it." The above sentiment from Southpaw epitomizes, very well, the way most competent, and capable players approach D&D, especially if they have taken time to learn the system, and actually understand how it works, and then at the table, as a party, apply that shared knowledge. Quintessential D&D at very close, if not exactly it's d#$% finest. I tip my hat to you good sir Southpaw, and extend a very hearty handshake and a well played. Again, following my disclaimer, the above thoughts expressed are NOT reflective of my status as a builder or any influence/inference regarding FRC admin, build team, or DM entity.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Sept 7, 2018 19:06:24 GMT -5
I'm not understanding exactly. Why would anyone attack Jackie Chan, who's known for his cat-like reflexes, with a reflex save attack anyways? His 95% chance to evade the attack makes him pretty much immune as it is. The 5% option to fail wouldn't exactly invite mages to cast fireballs at Jackie. To make him completely immune, he'd need to be blessed by the gods or warded by the weave (IE: Aura of Courage, Protection from Alignment, Deatward).
On the topic of storytelling, the idea that Jackie Chan should always pass his reflex save is what would stifle the story. If Jackie Chan always succeeded, how would Tsui manage to get away during the sting operation that Jackie took part in? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116704/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_64). How would Tsui's minions manage to get a hold of Jackie and give him a proper beat down, allowing Tsui to make his getaway? Failure itself makes for a great story. It makes for equally more challenging gameplay for a game that could be made easier by leveling beyond the content or acquiring new items.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Sept 7, 2018 19:46:50 GMT -5
I'm not understanding exactly. Why would anyone attack Jackie Chan, who's known for his cat-like reflexes, with a reflex save attack anyways? His 95% chance to evade the attack makes him pretty much immune as it is. The 5% option to fail wouldn't exactly invite mages to cast fireballs at Jackie. To make him completely immune, he'd need to be blessed by the gods or warded by the weave (IE: Aura of Courage, Protection from Alignment, Deatward). On the topic of storytelling, the idea that Jackie Chan should always pass his reflex save is what would stifle the story. If Jackie Chan always succeeded, how would Tsui manage to get away during the sting operation that Jackie took part in? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116704/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_64). How would Tsui's minions manage to get a hold of Jackie and give him a proper beat down, allowing Tsui to make his getaway? Failure itself makes for a great story. It makes for equally more challenging gameplay for a game that could be made easier by leveling beyond the content or acquiring new items. If you’re hearing, “Jackie Chan should always pass his reflex saves,” then you’re mishearing me. I’m saying, “If you want Jackie to fail a reflex save with a reflex save bonus of 60, then throw something at him with a DC of 62 or more.”
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Sept 7, 2018 20:07:56 GMT -5
But if that's that case, Tsui's henchmen should never attack Jackie because they'll never be able to bypass his 60 DC, even with their overpowering numbers. He's far too powerful so they'll never be able to pull off the upset, no matter how they try.
Level, hit points, and a bunch of other factors would diminish Tsui's henchmen's chance of success for the entire encounter but they still need to have some chance. Otherwise, what's the point of opposing Mr. Chan?
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Sept 8, 2018 1:13:42 GMT -5
|
|