Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
So yes it is fair to compare spells from different classes.
If ypur goal is to compare classes power then sure ...
If your goal is compare spells of single class to determine if people will use any other or only zhe strongest one ... whike playing that class ... then im sory but its missleading.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
So yes it is fair to compare spells from different classes.
If ypur goal is to compare classes power then sure ...
If your goal is compare spells of single class to determine if people will use any other or only zhe strongest one ... whike playing that class ... then im sory but its missleading.

I think that before you can say "X is OP", you're going to have to provide a frame of reference. If it's an overall class evaluation, then you have to provide the class(es) that are outshone by X. If it's a spell, then you need to have something to compare it to. It cannot be OP in a vacuum, it has to be OP compared to something else.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Well, when i said (quote)
"i cant honest imagine much people who would take, well basicaly any other offensive spell at low level ...[i]"
I presumed it should be clear that im talking about spells people can take instead Chromatic Orb ... since Chromatic Orb and other two Cleric spells that was mentioned here are not part of the same spell list, and therefore they cannot be taken "instead" each other ...

Same as when i said (quote)
"[i]It seems quite logical that if you wish to compare spells that can strictly attack single target, you will compare it either with other single target spells, or for single target ...
"
I once again presumed that my message was clear enough. O_o

Sure ...
I could have list all spells that seems weaker to me, but i once again presumed that we all know that power of various spell depends mainly on situation ...
Magic Missiles that were used are certainly a LOT stronger in situation where your chance to hit with Chromatic Orb is 40% ... not so much stronger when you have 95% and Advantage. :-/
We can also debate if Acid surface is worth the spell ... it most likely isnt for Goblin who have 12AC ... but reducing Githyanki general from 21 AC to at least 19, that seems worthy to me.

Thats why i keep saying that in best case scenario Larian should give us both options ... and let us use whatever we want, depending on situation.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 16/06/22 04:30 PM.

In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Thats why i keep saying that in best case scenario Larian should give us both options ... and let us use whatever we want, depending on situation.

I fully agree with this.
Let us use every element as surface/effect + 2D8 OR only 3D8 damages.

Joined: Oct 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2021
I like the surface effects. Makes the game more interesting. The environment comes alive.

One of the reasons I like choosing chromatic orb as a spell is because of the versatility of damage types, more so than the amount of damage.

*

As a side note, someone mentioned that cleric spells could be directly compared to wizard spells because both casters have the same number of spell slots, thus creating the intention of balance. I don't think that's a sound argument. Clerics can wear armor. They have a different number of hit points. They have different weapon proficiencies. Surely this stuff should factor into the overall balance. Just a thought.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm not sure, why the comparison of classes and spells is so important in regard to the topic, but if you have to, you might want to be a bit more thorough.

First of all though, I stand by what I wrote earlier: I'd like to have spells like Chromatic Orb and Melf's Acid Arrow work as written in the official DND 5e rules. If hazardous surfaces are important for BG3 (for whatever reason), it would be much better to "outsource" them to their own custom spells. The spells on both the Wizard and Cleric spell lists are pretty good, both flavor and balance wise and homebrewing them feels like repairing something, that isn't broken. That usually doesn't end well. Sure, it's nice to have the option to put obstacles in your opponents' way, but:

1. The rule books offer spells for that purpose already (grease, darkness, etc.)
2. The enemy AI tends to overuse effects like that which can get annoying extremly quickly. If a party member dies, you have to reload, or pay for the ressurection in camp - not very fun. If an enemy AI character dies, so what? There are always more, meaning it's not such a huge problem for them.

The use of surfaces and area effects should be a strategic decission, but right now it feels like there is so much of it, that it works against the player most of the time. If anything it makes the proper use of these spells more difficult, because now you have to make sure, that your frontline fighter(s) don't get mixed up in it. And we have spells like Burning Hands and Fireball for that already. That is why I'd like to have the spells as written and (additional) surface effects, if needed at all, implemented as original homebrew spells. That way players have a better way to use or avoid them, as desired and the devs can simply adjust the AI opponents' spell lists, depending on whether or not they want a specific encounter to be AoE heavy or not.

As for the comparison (in this case) of Clerics and Wizards (or Sorcerers) and their respective spells:

First, please note, that these classes are designed with different roles in mind:

Clerics can use shields and medium (or - with some domains - heavy) armor for a reason. They are not some frail back line healing machine, which you see in some MMORPGs. They are capable combatants in their own right, who don't shy away from close combat. Yes, they have healing spells, but they also have offensive, protective and some utility spells, to help the whole party.

Mages (both Wizards and Sorcerers) on the other hand are much closer to traditional glass cannons. They cannot wear armor by default and have the lowest hit dice in the game. To compensate for that (in battle) they have very potent offensive spell options, but also quite potent, if short lived defensive spells. A first level Wizard will typically sit at 14 to 15 DEX and consequently have an AC of 12. Mage Armor changes that to 15, which is nothing to write home about, but reasonable for a mage. And Shield, finally (which isn't in BG3, yet) can be cast as a reaction and will increase the AC by another 5 points for the following round. That means our level 1 mage will sit at a very respectable AC of 20 until their next turn. Does that mean they should actively seek melee combat? No, it's a means for them survive in dire circumstances.

For spells, Chromatic Orb has been compared to Guiding Bolt, so let's look at that comparison:

Guiding Bolt deals 4d6 radiant damage. That's appropriate for someone who channels divine power and helps against some classic creatures of evil. Zombies for example can be difficult to kill (depending on their CON saves) unless the killing blow is a critical hit or radiant damage. In addition the target of Guiding Bolt can be attacked with advantage once, before the end of the caster's next turn. That's great for the frontline fighters and enables a Rogue to use their sneak attack.

In short: The spell requires an attack roll, does a minium of 4/maximum of 24 radiant damage and grants advantage on the next attack roll against the target during the following round.

Chromatic Orb simply deals 3d8 damage of one of 6 types, which the caster can freely choose.

In short: An attack roll again and a minimum of 3/maximum of 24 acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, or thunder damage.

So while Guiding Bolt's minimum damage is one point higher, and it offers a bonus effect, which anyone in the party can make use of, Chromatic Orb is more versatile through the different damage types available, but doesn't offer any additional effects. The maximum damage possible is equal - 24 in both cases.

What if we cast the spells at level 2 instead? Guiding Bolt gets an additional d6 per spell level, while Chromatic Orb gets a d8. That means at level 2 Guiding Bolt has a maximum damage potential of 30, while Chromatic Orb is already looking at 32. Level 3 has 36 and 40 respectively - you get the idea.

Long story (read: wall of text) short: Seems extremely well balanced to me. The class which feels comfortable in melee range gets less damage and a bit of party utility, the class which is weak in melee combat gets more damage and versatility but without the gimmicks.

Two very different classes with different spell lists and playstyles, but again, I don't see how this comparison of class/spell balance relates to existing spells being modified to include hazardous surfaces, or d20 rolls other than attack rolls having critical fails and successes on a natural one and twenty respectively.

TLDR: Critical fails/successes - for anything but attack rolls - should go. We have advantage/disadvantage to account for special circumstances. "Puddles" should not be modded into (and consequently be removed from) existing spells and should instead be implemented as original homebrew spells.

Last edited by Kasai; 17/06/22 12:16 PM. Reason: typos

Qc terxepssrw evi jypp sj aiewipw. Mrjsvq xli uyiir ws xlex wli qmklx wlss xliq eaec. Livi ai ks 'vsyrh xli qypfivvc fywl. Ks, qsroic, KS!
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Dez Offline
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by Nebuul
Larian,

I've played this game far more than is healthy for a pre-release, and I've really enjoyed it. There are a few design decisions you've made, though, that I think seriously detract from the game. Mostly, these center around ways you have "homebrewed" D&D 5e. However, rather than just making a "PLZ FOLLOW 5E GG NO RE" argument, I thought I'd give some reasoning as to why it's important in these cases:

I. Skill Rolls: Automatic Failures and Automatic Successes
These need to go. In any worthwhile progression-style game, there are challenges that are either too hard for a character to currently complete, or so trivial that an advanced-enough character should automatically succeed. D&D 5e recognizes this. In 5e, there are only two times that a roll can be a guaranteed success or failure:
  • Attack Rolls
  • Save vs Death to avoid dying

That's it. And that's ok.

Consider a character with dexterity 8 and no slight-of-hand proficiency who is trying to lockpick a DC 25 door. Why should they automatically succeed on a natural 20? This character should either try to bash the door down, or they should find another character with the skillset required. At the same time, consider a character with 20 dex, guidance, and slight-of-hand proficiency wearing the smuggler's ring. Then they should never, ever fail the DC 5 lock picking check. They are too good. The roll is beneath them. It is extremely frustrating to see a failure when it neither mirrors the 5e rules nor what people experience in real life. Would the Lockpicking Lawyer ever fail to open a consumer-grade masterlock padlock? No, he wouldn't. It's beneath his skill. As a player who raises a champion to be explicitly good at a specific task, it is extremely frustrating to see my <whatever>-skill-focused champion fail at a menial task. It is not fun. It makes me wish I had save scummed beforehand for the explicit purpose of bypassing this unavoidable failure. And make no mistake: A 1-in-20 chance, also known as 5%, is a huge auto-failure/success chance. Most importantly, it completely removes agency from player decisions.

In general, I agree with this statement!

Honestly, in this debate I am in the Pathfinder club. In pathfinder, the modifiers you specialize in gets so insane after a while that it will be *literally* impossible to fail or succeed certain skill checks (unless you have the guaranteed fail/success in, which I agree should go away).

Just one question - does critical success / failure actually exist for skill checks according to RAW? I was under the impression that critical success/failure and grades of success/failure in DnD was just two very, very common homebrews?


Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I believe they dont ...
At least it was common argument against it as far as i remember.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
They don't. As per the PHB page 194 this is what is said about 1 and 20:

ROLLING I OR 20
Sometimes fate blesses ar curses a combatant, causing
the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 rol1for an attack is a 20, the attack hits
regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC. In
addition, the attack is a criticai hit, as explained later
in this chapter.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a I, the attack misses
regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC.


That's for attack rolls. no equivalent can be found in the pages covering ability checks or saving throws.

Joined: Nov 2020
N
Nebuul Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
N
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
They don't. As per the PHB page 194 this is what is said about 1 and 20:

ROLLING I OR 20
Sometimes fate blesses ar curses a combatant, causing
the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.
If the d20 rol1for an attack is a 20, the attack hits
regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC. In
addition, the attack is a criticai hit, as explained later
in this chapter.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a I, the attack misses
regardless of any modifiers ar the target's AC.


That's for attack rolls. no equivalent can be found in the pages covering ability checks or saving throws.

This is correct. As I mentioned in the OP, attack rolls and the saves vs death are the only rolls in 5e that are guaranteed to fail on 1 or succeed on 20. Literally every other save or ability check just compare the result numbers. So that DC 5 lock? Once you have a +4 modifier, it will be a 100% success rate. On the same ticket, that dc 20 lock is impossible if a character has even a -1 penalty.

That is the way it should be, though. So frustrating to have +13 slight of hand and still fail a DC 5 lock, and so stupid to be able to save scrum a dc 20 check with a -3 mod until the 20 gets rolled. And before you think those chances are rare, remember that rolling a 1 or 20 is basically a 10% chance with disadvantage/advantage, respectively.

Last edited by Nebuul; 21/06/22 08:38 AM. Reason: Typo
Joined: May 2022
E
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
E
Joined: May 2022
Originally Posted by Nebuul
That is the way it should be, though. So frustrating to have +13 slight of hand and still fail a DC 5 lock, and so stupid to be able to save scrum a dc 20 check with a -3 mod until the 20 gets rolled. And before you think those chances are rare, remember that rolling a 1 or 20 is basically a 10% chance with disadvantage/advantage, respectively.

The game offers you plenty of options to deal with a failed skill check. In a case of failed lockpicking:
- there are keys to a lot of chests lying around nearby,
- thieves tools are an easily accessible resource,
- inspirations allow you to take a reroll,
- a lot of the doors and chests can be destroyed (which may result in slightly reduced hoard),
- there are often alternative routes to reach places behind the locked door.

Having a 1/20 chance to fail any check might cause players to look for other ways to solve problems other than just always relaying on min/maxed party skills. In my eyes, that is a good thing.

On a flip side, if someone would rather spend a spell slot for enhance ability and 9 reloads on average to get a 20 on an otherwise impossible check, rather than exploring other options available in the game or, the heresy, just accepting the failed check, why not allow them. It's not fun nor optimal, but does it really make your decision to specialize in a skill meaningless?

Last edited by Elebhra; 21/06/22 09:37 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Elebhra
Having a 1/20 chance to fail any check might cause players to look for other ways to solve problems other than just always relaying on min/maxed party skills. In my eyes, that is a good thing.
But you can just rely on normal failure (DC 15 and the player rolling a total of 11) for these "other ways to solve problems." Why punish someone who's spent a lot of effort to be good at a skill with 5% auto failure?

Originally Posted by Elebhra
On a flip side, if someone would rather spend a spell slot for enhance ability and 9 reloads on average to get a 20 on an otherwise impossible check, rather than exploring other options available in the game or, the heresy, just accepting the failed check, why not allow them. It's not fun nor optimal, but does it really make your decision to specialize in a skill meaningless?
There's not a need for the rule "natural 20's auto-succeed skill checks," because 5e's bounded accuracy ensures that a lockpick (or any check, really) will almost always be possible rolling naturally. "Hard" checks are DC 20; "Very Hard" are DC 25; "Nearly Impossible" are DC 30.
A level 1 character with +3 Dex and proficiency in thieves' tools can successfully pick a Very Hard lock with a normal (not auto-success) 20; expertise means they'd only need an 18.
A level 5 character with +4 Dex and expertise in thieves' tools can successfully pick a Nearly Impossible lock with a normal (not auto-success) 20. With only proficiency, they'll need to be level 13.
Oh and then you can possibly add +1d4 from guidance, which means that the person with only proficiency can succeed at level ~5.

And honestly, the above situations are fairly extreme. If a DM is giving the party Very Hard skill checks at level 1-4 or Nearly Impossible skill checks at level 5-10...that probably means the DM doesn't want the party to succeed. In which case, the party probably shouldn't have the option to roll at all. "You see a very complex lock. Looking at it, you can clearly tell it is beyond your ability to pick and/or would take longer than you have free time." Or to use the common example: "Obviously the King won't give you his kingdom no matter what you roll."

*Unless you have a full party without anyone proficient in lockpicking, but then that's on you for creating an unbalanced party. And you've probably made up for this by being extremely good in other skills.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
In a game based on 5e with a major relic story plot item being a glorified d20 (Shadowheart's Mysterious Box), it really makes sense to stay true to actual 5e rules. Nat 20 is ONLY automatic hit in combat. Nat 1 is ONLY auto miss in combat.

Outside of combat, it makes sense to have some rolls you simply can't fail and some you simply cannot succeed in. The game design makes it so DMs can set a difficulty that is simply impossible for a character to succeed in and ones that are simply impossible for a character to fail.

Example:. There is a lock that an Expert Lockpicker should not be able to fail in picking. DC is 8. Lockpicker had +4 Expert Prof+3 Dex. Roll is 1 or higher. Can't fail. Don't need to roll. The lock is so simple, even a non-proficient person can pretty easily succeed. Surely, a lock so easy would be utterly humiliating for such a Lockpicker to fail.

But, on the flip side, a truly expert lock should not in any way be able to be picked by someone who is NOT an expert. Joe shmoe cleric with 0 skill shouldn't even get a 1 in 20 chance to succeed in picking a lock on a highly secure bank vault. Like Fuji said, there should be a, "Sorry. This lock is beyond your skill." message. That's the whole point in Proficiency and Expertise. They not only increase a character's chances of succeeding, giving them a boost above other characters, but it allows DMs the ability to set DCs in ways so that if a character has no training in something, it is completely impossible for them to succeed.

This is why we keep pushing for Expertise so much. It's REALLY killing the Rogue class, and it'll kill the Bard too. Something as simple to implement as Expertise... I just can't understand why they haven't done it.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PixieStix2
I think auto success or fail should be based more on common sense. Like I'm playing a Rogue/Thief with a background as a criminal. How is it possible for her to fail at a level 5 lock? Sure it is rare, but its still there and feels really dumb. With that said I also really don't like rolling in combat. I know its a D&D thing, but I hate missing an attack when I am standing right next to someone. I'm always like, "How the f**k did you miss that!? Are you blind?"


You are not missing when you are missing. Your blow just doesn't do damage.

And a turn is 6 seconds... All the things you do is in 6 seconds of course you can *miss*... You play shooter games? You also miss sometimes. Just imagine those shooter games be turn based and you have 10 minutes time to plot your 6 second turn...

Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 22/06/22 08:22 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
... that an Expert Lockpicker should not be ....


If someone is 0.00001% "better" than another one should he never fail Vs them?

What about 10% "better"? 100% 200000000000000% ... Never?

Statistically to say never is wrong. 1/20 might be too high sometimes , but it's a fantasy games and we have inspiration...

I think the game is rather far too easy! And I don't want to get everything in 1 playthrough. Let me fail pls. It's makes the game better in my eyes. A little Randomness makes it great! Sense of danger.

In my eyes it is NOT ok to always win or always lose. The opposite is true. It's boring to know before ..

Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 22/06/22 08:31 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Let me put it this way.

Game session of Star Wars RPG. Epic climactic fight. My brother's character is an athletic, heroic soldier. Really skilled. He is trying to reach the boss. Needs to run up stairs. Difficulty is 5 or higher. He gets +10.

Rolls a 1. Automatic failure, the rules said. He trips on the stairs. Everyone laughs. He's ticked, but he says, "Well. That's life sometimes I guess."

Next round, my unlucky brother rolls a 1 again. Trips and falls again like a blundering idiot. Now he's ticked that the rules say he has to keep rolling just to run up stairs. Also that it doesn't matter that he has +10 skill. When he needs to get to the boss who is butchering his team, because of some unlucky dice rolls, he is floundering like a moron on a staircase.

It sounds legit at first to allow for failure for mundane, simple skill checks, but in situations like this, players get annoyed and even ticked when they fail such overly simple checks. It's not worth the roll. After that event, I changed the rule myself, no longer forcing players to roll for difficulties beneath their skill.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Let me put it this way.

Game session of Star Wars RPG. Epic climactic fight. My brother's character is an athletic, heroic soldier. Really skilled. He is trying to reach the boss. Needs to run up stairs. Difficulty is 5 or higher. He gets +10.

Rolls a 1. Automatic failure, the rules said. He trips on the stairs. Everyone laughs. He's ticked, but he says, "Well. That's life sometimes I guess."

Next round, my unlucky brother rolls a 1 again. Trips and falls again like a blundering idiot. Now he's ticked that the rules say he has to keep rolling just to run up stairs. Also that it doesn't matter that he has +10 skill. When he needs to get to the boss who is butchering his team, because of some unlucky dice rolls, he is floundering like a moron on a staircase.

It sounds legit at first to allow for failure for mundane, simple skill checks, but in situations like this, players get annoyed and even ticked when they fail such overly simple checks. It's not worth the roll. After that event, I changed the rule myself, no longer forcing players to roll for difficulties beneath their skill.

So you're advocating for more homebrew rules?

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Let me put it this way.

Game session of Star Wars RPG. Epic climactic fight. My brother's character is an athletic, heroic soldier. Really skilled. He is trying to reach the boss. Needs to run up stairs. Difficulty is 5 or higher. He gets +10.

Rolls a 1. Automatic failure, the rules said. He trips on the stairs. Everyone laughs. He's ticked, but he says, "Well. That's life sometimes I guess."

Next round, my unlucky brother rolls a 1 again. Trips and falls again like a blundering idiot. Now he's ticked that the rules say he has to keep rolling just to run up stairs. Also that it doesn't matter that he has +10 skill. When he needs to get to the boss who is butchering his team, because of some unlucky dice rolls, he is floundering like a moron on a staircase.

It sounds legit at first to allow for failure for mundane, simple skill checks, but in situations like this, players get annoyed and even ticked when they fail such overly simple checks. It's not worth the roll. After that event, I changed the rule myself, no longer forcing players to roll for difficulties beneath their skill.

So you're advocating for more homebrew rules?

Is he? Since the critical 1/20 in ability checks is not per phb, feels more like he is advocating for going back to raw in this case.

Edit: Sorry, bad comprehension on my part there. His last part is about the typical "take 10"-rule. In that you're correct.

Last edited by PrivateRaccoon; 22/06/22 01:14 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Let me put it this way.

Game session of Star Wars RPG. Epic climactic fight. My brother's character is an athletic, heroic soldier. Really skilled. He is trying to reach the boss. Needs to run up stairs. Difficulty is 5 or higher. He gets +10.

Rolls a 1. Automatic failure, the rules said. He trips on the stairs. Everyone laughs. He's ticked, but he says, "Well. That's life sometimes I guess."

Next round, my unlucky brother rolls a 1 again. Trips and falls again like a blundering idiot. Now he's ticked that the rules say he has to keep rolling just to run up stairs. Also that it doesn't matter that he has +10 skill. When he needs to get to the boss who is butchering his team, because of some unlucky dice rolls, he is floundering like a moron on a staircase.

It sounds legit at first to allow for failure for mundane, simple skill checks, but in situations like this, players get annoyed and even ticked when they fail such overly simple checks. It's not worth the roll. After that event, I changed the rule myself, no longer forcing players to roll for difficulties beneath their skill.

So you're advocating for more homebrew rules?

Is he? Since the critical 1/20 in ability checks is not per phb, feels more like he is advocating for going back to raw in this case.

Quote
After that event, I changed the rule myself, no longer forcing players to roll for difficulties beneath their skill

Literally copy/pasted from the last line of the post I quoted.

Joined: Oct 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2021
Tommy is a master swordsman. He rolls a one and misses the enemy. "Oh, well, you can't hit them all," he thinks.

Then he rolls another one and misses again. This time he gets mad.

So we make a rule that he no longer has to roll to hit because it's beneath him.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Nicou 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5