Re: Re: 0W2

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:49:28 +0000 (GMT)


> > Umm... isn't 0W2 actually 20W1? So if you rolled a
> 20 you'd still fail (20
> > =
> > automatic fumble, bumped to fail). Or am I missing
> something?

RR:

> Your missing the fact that you are not supposed to
> roll on this number. It
> would only ever be modified from, not *ever* used
> as-is. That's why it's "0"w2.
>
> If you convert it into non-mastery notation, yes, it
> is 40, which would then
> translate back to 20w, but that's not the point of
> the exercise.

Or to look at it another way, if you use it alone, you're trying to roll less than or equal to 0. You can't. So you fail - don't bother rolling. Those two masteries then bump the fail to a critical. Always, every time. (Yes, possibly it was a fumble bumped to a success, but do we care?)                 


 

Yahoo! Photos is now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo. http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

Powered by hypermail