Just now, Bellona said:Interesting! I didn't know that. (Not that it made any difference in my corrected post above.)
Opposing a check usually works as the acting character rolling their positive dice against the negative dice of the opposition. Disoriented only applies to your checks, and the rules say nothing about applying Boost or Setback from the opposition's talents or conditions.
The confusion comes from having Ventress roll the negative dice.
2 Ability substituted for blank Proficiency:
forgot a die
:
2eA
2 successes, 1 advantage
Final result, 2s2a=2s1a1T
5 hours ago, SuperWookie said:Discipline vs Ventress (Bind) : 2eP+2eA 5 successes, 1 advantage
At least Bird Lady can do something right!
shouldn't there be force dice in there?
3 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:shouldn't there be force dice in there?
No, we're resisting Ventress's check. Our GM just had her roll the negative dice.
I don't have any kind of ability that would let me roll Force dice to counter a Bind check. I think her Force dice were just there to see if she could activate it in the first place.
So the count is (after adjustments) ...
Affected by Bind: Camouflage, Ker'see
Not affected by Bind: Chee'Okee, Mireska
28 minutes ago, Bellona said:So the count is (after adjustments) ...
Affected by Bind: Camouflage, Ker'see
Not affected by Bind: Chee'Okee, Mireska
And apparently Jorin is not affected, correct? (I missed the post of Ventress using Bind.)
(Who's up next?)
5 hours ago, SuperWookie said:I don't have any kind of ability that would let me roll Force dice to counter a Bind check. I think her Force dice were just there to see if she could activate it in the first place.
The Suppress power (in the Guardian sourcebook, Keeping the Peace ), would be useful in this situation.
2 minutes ago, RuusMarev said:And apparently Jorin is not affected, correct? (I missed the post of Ventress using Bind.)
(Who's up next?)
Jorin is too far away, IIRC.
The Initiative list is on the bottom half of OOC p. 149.
After V the PCs have 5 slots (of which Chee'Okee has already used one), then come the 3 B2 groups and the lone B1 in the starfighter.
We are behind in the IC posts ... waiting on @EliasWindrider for Ventress' post (which should have been before Chee'Okee's IC post).
OOC-wise, we're waiting for Camouflage/ @P-47 Thunderbolt , the Varactyls, Poe, and a CT minion group, followed by 3x B2 groups and the B1.
Everyone add a an ability die and call it even.
7 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:Everyone add a an ability die and call it even.
Ventress also needs to have her +1 Setback (from the 2 Advantages spent by Mireska when Mireska attacked her) accounted for as it applied to Ventress' next check - which in this case would be her opposed Discipline check against the four PCs (excluding Jorin).
Since the opposed check got flipped around, the +1 Setback became a +1 Boost for the PCs (at least, that's how I accounted for it in my corrected OOC post with Mireska's part of the opposed Discipline check).
Extra Ability Die
:
1eA
1 success, 1 advantage
Brings Chee'Okee up to 6 successes and 2 advantages vs 4 failures, 3 threat, 1 Despair for a NET of 2 successes, 1 threat, 1 Despair.
2 minutes ago, SuperWookie said:Extra Ability Die : 1eA 1 success, 1 advantage
Brings Chee'Okee up to 6 successes and 2 advantages vs 4 failures, 3 threat, 1 Despair for a NET of 2 successes, 1 threat, 1 Despair.
The results of which then need to be flipped, as it actually is Ventress who's supposed to be the active party on this opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check for the Bind power.
(IIUC, the check was only flipped because it was being opposed by 4 different PCs, each of whom had different Discipline dice pools which meant that they couldn't provide Ventress with one single Difficulty rating against which to roll.)
37 minutes ago, Bellona said:The results of which then need to be flipped, as it actually is Ventress who's supposed to be the active party on this opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check for the Bind power.
(IIUC, the check was only flipped because it was being opposed by 4 different PCs, each of whom had different Discipline dice pools which meant that they couldn't provide Ventress with one single Difficulty rating against which to roll.)
What does that mean then? No Despair results? She has 2 failures, 1 advantage, and 1 triumph?
1 minute ago, SuperWookie said:What does that mean then? No Despair results? She has 2 failures, 1 advantage, and 1 triumph?
Against Chee'Okee, yes.
Chee'Okee and Mireska are unaffected by Ventress' Bind power because she failed the opposed Discipline check against them.
Ker'see and Camouflage are affected, resulting in +3 Wounds ignoring Soak, being Immobilised (no maneouvres), and one +30 Critical Injury (if it's the same roll for every target, then our GM obtained the 75/Hamstrung result when first asked).
Ventress' Discipline Triumph can be spent on adding +1 Boost to any Discipline checks made by her allies during the following round (FaD pp. 120-121).
Ventress' Advantages (which are different against the various PCs) may be spent to give her "an additional insight into the situation at hand" (same pages).
The +1 Boost die is there because Mireska inflicted +1 Setback on Ventress during her attack on Ventress. I thought that it would be faster to roll it as +1 Boost for the four PCs instead of waiting for our GM to roll it and then flip the results himself. If everyone wants to simplify things, they could just use the Boost result from Mireska's roll (+1 Advantage). That would reduce Ventress' Advantages down to 0 against Chee'Okee and Ker'see, but Ventress still would have 1 Advantage on her opposed Discipline check against Camouflage.
I'm just waiting for the IC to be sorted out, then I'll post.
Critical Injury : 1d100 86 116. Figures. Blinded, upgrade the difficulty of all checks twice, Perception and Vigilance three times.
Is that permanent, or only until healed? The book is not clear either way.
56 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:I'm just waiting for the IC to be sorted out, then I'll post.
Critical Injury : 1d100 86 116. Figures. Blinded, upgrade the difficulty of all checks twice, Perception and Vigilance three times.
Is that permanent, or only until healed? The book is not clear either way.
I always play it as temporary but once a player had it twice in the same encounter so it became permanent.
@Bellona Do I need to roll a crit?
4 hours ago, MrTInce said:...
@Bellona Do I need to roll a crit?
This is weird ...
I've checked both the short version of the Mastery upgrade (in the tree) and the long version (FaD pp. 286 + 289).
Short version: "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check against one target of the power ..." (implies only one target for the mastery upgrade's effect, no matter how other targets are affected by the power).
Long version (usually the clearer one): "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check as part of the pool ... the target immediately suffers ..." (could be interpreted as meaning one or more targets, so long as each one is a target of a successful opposed check).
*shrugs*
Anyone got any thoughts on interpreting this one?
2 minutes ago, Bellona said:This is weird ...
I've checked both the short version of the Mastery upgrade (in the tree) and the long version (FaD pp. 286 + 289).
Short version: "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check against one target of the power ..." (implies only one target for the mastery upgrade's effect, no matter how other targets are affected by the power).
Long version (usually the clearer one): "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check as part of the pool ... the target immediately suffers ..." (could be interpreted as meaning one or more targets, so long as each one is a target of a successful opposed check).
*shrugs*
Anyone got any thoughts on interpreting this one?
Thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't realized.
It says to make an Opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check against one target of the power if it isn't already an opposed check. Technically, since we're PCs it should already be opposed, either by Athletics or Resilience.
However, the rules are not clear regarding the circumstances when multiple characters are targeted by the same check.
I would say that since this is multiple characters being targeted by the same check, they each oppose separately (but that is a houserule). However, since the check is already opposed, it can't then trigger a crit.
Per RAW, what I believe would happen in this scenario, is that Ventress chooses a target and rolls an opposed check against them. If she succeeds, the check succeeds and she can spend the Force points which can include the Magnitude upgrade. If she fails, she fails. Either way, she cannot trigger crits.
As a GM, I would specify that any targets with a higher difficulty on an opposed check would be excluded from the Magnitude upgrade.
11 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't realized.
It says to make an Opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check against one target of the power if it isn't already an opposed check. Technically, since we're PCs it should already be opposed, either by Athletics or Resilience.
However, the rules are not clear regarding the circumstances when multiple characters are targeted by the same check.
I would say that since this is multiple characters being targeted by the same check, they each oppose separately (but that is a houserule). However, since the check is already opposed, it can't then trigger a crit.
Per RAW, what I believe would happen in this scenario, is that Ventress chooses a target and rolls an opposed check against them. If she succeeds, the check succeeds and she can spend the Force points which can include the Magnitude upgrade. If she fails, she fails. Either way, she cannot trigger crits.
As a GM, I would specify that any targets with a higher difficulty on an opposed check would be excluded from the Magnitude upgrade.
Discipline is the main go-to skill for any necessary activation of and resistance to Force powers if there isn't already a specified opposed or combat check; the other options are basically at the GM's discretion, although a few specific non-Discipline examples are given using Athletics and Resilience (sidebar on FaD p. 283).
Normally only PCs, Nemeses, and plot-important named Rivals get to resist Force powers in such a manner. Minions and regular Rivals do not.
We did oppose separately. I believe that our GM flipped the opposed skill check in order to account for the various targets' Discipline skills. I think that that's a reasonable approach.
It sounds like you're arguing that PCs, etc. in general are not subject to the Bind Mastery upgrade simply because they are already allowed an opposed check. Whether or not the power's activation already included an opposed check should have no bearing on whether or not the Mastery upgrade can be triggered. "If the check was not already opposed, the user may roll an opposed Discipline check as part of the pool ..." should be interpreted as meaning: "the basic Bind power can work on anyone, but can be resisted by PCs, Nemeses, and plot-important named Rivals. If the user wishes to activate the Mastery upgrade, then Minions and regular Rivals also get a chance to resist it." Not: "PCs, Nemeses, and plot-important named Rivals are immune to the Mastery upgrade because they already have a chance to resist the basic version."
On the other hand, maybe you were referring to the fact that some of our PCs in this particular case had already resisted Ventress' Bind - in which case I would agree that those who had resisted it would not be subject to the Mastery upgrade.
The Force pips are spent before resolving the check: "... although the entire check is made at one time, the character should generate and spend [Force pips] immediately after rolling the dice pool, before interpreting the results of the rest of the pool." (FaD p. 281)
Ventress saw some potential targets and tried to use Bind on them. In this case, the Force only gave her a limited number of DS pips which she then allocated between targets within the available range increments (the four nearest PCs - probably because they're Jedi and/or she's run into them before). Then she got to the opposed check part of the dice pool and found out that two of her targets managed to resist her and the other two did not. The ones who did not resist were then subjected to the Mastery upgrade, which in this case was the infliction of a critical injury (because she only used DS pips when activating the entire power; the upgrade itself does not cost any Force pips).
Edited by Bellona
11 hours ago, Bellona said:This is weird ...
I've checked both the short version of the Mastery upgrade (in the tree) and the long version (FaD pp. 286 + 289).
Short version: "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check against one target of the power ..." (implies only one target for the mastery upgrade's effect, no matter how other targets are affected by the power).
Long version (usually the clearer one): "... may roll an opposed Discipline vs. Discipline check as part of the pool ... the target immediately suffers ..." (could be interpreted as meaning one or more targets, so long as each one is a target of a successful opposed check).
*shrugs*
Anyone got any thoughts on interpreting this one?
My only question here is whether or not a "multiple Bind" situation allows the user to apply the Mastery upgrade to more than one target (assuming that any necessary opposed Discipline checks have been won by the user).
ETA:
Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm going with the "multiple basic Bind = possibility of multiple targets for Mastery upgrade" option unless anyone points me at another ruling.
Edited by Bellona
3 hours ago, Bellona said:It sounds like you're arguing that PCs, etc. in general are not subject to the Bind Mastery upgrade simply because they are already allowed an opposed check. Whether or not the power's activation already included an opposed check should have no bearing on whether or not the Mastery upgrade can be triggered. "If the check was not already opposed, the user may roll an opposed Discipline check as part of the pool ..." should be interpreted as meaning: "the basic Bind power can work on anyone, but can be resisted by PCs, Nemeses, and plot-important named Rivals. If the user wishes to activate the Mastery upgrade, then Minions and regular Rivals also get a chance to resist it." Not: "PCs, Nemeses, and plot-important named Rivals are immune to the Mastery upgrade because they already have a chance to resist the basic version."
Yes, that's what I'm saying based on my read of the description where it says "Unless it's already an opposed check."
This would mean you could use Bind's Mastery upgrade against the Stormtrooper Sergeant, the Droideka, the Arms Dealer, but not against PCs or Nemeses.
But that alternative interpretation does make sense. Grr, they really could have been more clear.
I've got a good grasp on the entire system except for Force powers. That is my weakest area because I was late in getting FaD and because Force-y characters have never been my forte, either as an audience, GM, or player.* "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Worth adding the disclaimer here that I'm not asking for any do-overs, just trying to sort this out ongoing.
*Not that I never like them or find them interesting or that I have an aversion to them, just that the mysticism of Star Wars has never been what drew me. It was the ships and the soldiers. And Han Solo.
The rules also state that a player should always get an opposed roll when targeted by a Force power.
Edited by SuperWookie13 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:I'm just waiting for the IC to be sorted out, then I'll post.
Critical Injury : 1d100 86 116. Figures. Blinded, upgrade the difficulty of all checks twice, Perception and Vigilance three times.
Is that permanent, or only until healed? The book is not clear either way.
Temporary
Can we please get Ventress' IC post (attempted Bind on 4 PCs, but it only affects Ker'see and Camouflage)?
(Possibly with a response to Mireska's question.)
Chee'Okee's action was posted out of order (too early) in the IC thread, but that shouldn't affect anything; she resisted the Bind so she would have been able to act normally afterwards anyway.