A Hero with 4 Ranks in a Skill can make 2 Raises for sets of 15.

A GM may spend a Danger Point to increase the total needed for each Raise by 5.

Does this interaction resolve as:

A) A Hero can make 1 Raise for a set of 15 and cannot use the 4 Ranks in a Skill benefit that Round (Simplest)

B) A Hero can make 1 Raise for a set of 15 and 2 Raises for a set of 20 (Adding +5 from the Danger Point. A benefit over the current rules)

C) A Hero can make 1 Raise for a set of 15 and 2 Raises for a set of 25 (extrapolating the -5 required for 2 individual raises by the 4 Ranks of a Skill rule)

John

I'd go with option B) myself.

Do you have a reason for picking it? I don't know what is the best, but curious of your thinking. B seems like a 'benefit' to the Heros as usually they cannot make 2 raises out of 20 if the dice cannot make 2 sets of 10. For instance:

Rolls: 7, 2, 5, 6

This can make 1 Set of 10 (1 Raise) with 2 leftover dice. However, under option B where the Danger Point is spent, this can now be 1 set of 20 (2 Raises)

It seemed the right answer, without much thought. Then I analysed it and I think it's because I consider both of them to be +5 modifiers to a single instance of claiming raises.

That is: there are two modifiers in play here. One of those modifiers is constant: once your skill reaches 4 dots, you get to make two raises with 15. In my mind that was +5 to get 2 raises, not 10 for the first raise and 5 for the second.. The other is temporary: if the GM spent a Danger Point on that rule, you need to get +5 when making raises. So, to get the two raises it is 10 +5 +5 = 20.

I could've sworn that I saw a John Wick post suggesting option B as the semi-official one somewhere online (most likely Twitter or Facebook), but I cannot find it to cite for the life of me, so that might have been a fever dream of some kind. It could have also been someone else at JWP, too, and I'm misattributing it to the man himself.

Then again, I just assumed that that option B was how things would work when I read through the rules, and maybe I just subconsciously craved validation for that assumption.

You can also read that after having 4 dots on a skill you get a -5 to the total needed to make 2 raises.

0 sum means you'll need 20 to get 2 raises.

In the case of the Danger Point spent, you'd normally need 30 to make 2 raises, so would that be 25?

Uhm... If it gives you a bonus of 5 if you are earning 2 raises then yes, the result of a GM spending a danger point should be 25. And I retract my prior statement of 0 sum.

You don't get a -5 on each raise but simply a -5 IF you have enough to make 2 raises. Enough to make 2 raises if a Danger point is spent is 20, so the result should be 25. That's a powerful Danger Point...

I disagree that it spells it out unambiguously. It really depends upon how you interpret the order of things and how you interpret the 4 Ranks. I'm fine with whatever it is and I know it's rulings, not rules. so until it's answered at least for my tables, it will be 25 for 2 raises for 4 ranks in a skill as that is a clear extrapolation from needing 10s for a raise and doesn't introduce weird math advantages to the players for spending a danger point.

John

Here is my reasoning:

1) Normal Situation: 1 Raise = 1 Set of 10

2) Normal with 4 Ranks in a Skill: 1 Raise = 1 Set of 10 OR 2 Raises = 1 Set of 15

Reasoning: Since the normal situation is that to get 2 Raises it would take 2 Sets of 10, that's basically a total of 20 on the dice (Though you can't make 2 Raises = 1 Set of 20 at any time.). The 4 Ranks in a Skill give you a -5 bonus to what you'd essentially need for 2 Raises

3) Danger Point Situation: 1 Raise = 1 Set of 15 (10 +5)

4) Danger Point with 4 Ranks in a Skill: 1 Raise = 1 Set of 15 OR 2 Raises = 1 Set of 25.

Reasoning: To get 2 Raises you'd need 2 sets of 15, that's basically a total of 30 on the dice (Though you still can't make 2 Raises = 1 Set of 30 at any time). Therefore, the 4 Ranks would affect this scenario like the other and give a -5 bonus to what you'd essentially need for 2 Raises (30 - 5 - 25).

Allowing the Danger Point situation with 4 Ranks to be 1 Raise = 1 Set of 15 OR 2 Raises = 1 Set of 20, is now there is an inherent benefit to Heroes making 2 Raises for 20 points that doesn't exist in the normal situation. This situation is basically better than in the Normal Scenario with 4 Ranks (Where you still can't make 2 Raises for 20). I don't feel spending a Danger Point to make things more difficult should offer an advantage to Heroes.

I hope I've explained it clearly, but if not let me know. Doesn't mean you have to agree of course but I at least want to make sure I'm explaining my position.

John

If you want to think of the 4 Ranks as a "Buy one, get one" that works too. It's not "Buy one, get one free", it's "Buy one, get one half off".

Which if we extrapolate to the Danger Point situation is:

Buy 1 (Cost: set of 15)

Get 1 half off (Cost: set of 8 - Rounding up)

This means that you'd need to make Sets of 23 to get 2 Raises. If we similfy the math to always be multiples of 5, you end up at 25 anyways (Assuming rounding up which would keep in the spirit of Danger Point = harder)

John

B) A Hero can make 1 Raise for a set of 15 and 2 Raises for a set of 20 (Adding +5 from the Danger Point. A benefit over the current rules)This is my take on it.

I disagree, on a level, that it is a benefit over current rules. It is merely an adjustment given skill.

As you have pointed out, yes, you cannot make two raises out of 20 normally. But then, you cannot make 2 raises out of 15 normally, either. It is only when you reach a certain skill level. I believe that the best method is sometimes the simplest.

So yes, the Villain makes it harder for the Hero - almost as hard as if he was not as skilled. But, due to the level of his skill, he has one advantage... he can raise on a 10, or make two raises on a 20. So, he still has the benefit for being skilled in that arena.

I am with Sal: the Danger Point is a flat +5 to the TN. If you increase that because of the Rank 4 bonus, you’re placing a character with Rank 3 in a skill on better footing. Also, I don’t think the intention was for the +5 to receive proportional modification based on Skill Rank; John just isn’t that in to math.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”- H.L. MenckenI am not sure how someone with Rank 3 is worse off than someone with Rank 4 in Option C. The Rank 3 skill has 1 options: 1 Raise for 15 (If they need 2 Raises they need 2 15's). A Rank 4 skill has 2 Options: 1 Raise for 15 or 2 Raises for 25 (or 20 with Option B). I am absolutely in agreement that there was not much thought put into how those would interact from a math position.

I agree also there is ambiguity,mane I fully could support Option B but only from a "It's simpler" reason and not from any mathematic standpoint. This may the best answer, I concede. however, it stills wrong with me for two reasons.

1) The wording of the Danger Point says the cost of a Raise increases by 5. It doesn't say the cost of "Making Raises", which would include the 2 for 20.

2) The ability to make 2 Raises from a set of 20 is ALWAYS more probable than making 2 Sets of 10 given there are combinations that add up to 20 thst don't add up to two 10s (e.g. 7,2,5,6) but there are no combantuons thst add up to two 10s that don't also add up to 20. Therefore I don't like the fact that spending a Danger Point makes it harder to get 1 Raise but easier to get 2 Raises for 4 Rank Skills (1 Raise for 15 but you can get 2 Raises for 20, which is actually easier than having Danger Point spent as shown above).

Using my simple 9 Dice Pool example...(Not uncommon when you 4 Ranks)

Dice are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 and Skill Rank 4

Normal Scenario: 5 Raises (Sets: 1,2,5,7 [2] and 3,6,6 [2] and 5,5 [1]) - With 3 Ranks only 3 Raises were possible

Danger Point Spent (Option B): 4 Raises (Sets: 1,2,5,5,7 [2] and 3,5,6,6 [2]) - With 3 Ranks only 2 Raises were possible

Danger Point Spent (Option C): 3 Raises (Sets: 1,2,5,5,5,7 [2] and 3,6,6 [1]) - With 3 Ranks only 2 Raises were possible

This is just set of dice, but there is an inherent advantage in Option B over the base rules allowing 2 for 20 that doesn't sit well with me. It isn't going to make or break any games, but I feel it undermines what spending a Danger Point is meant to do: make it harder for everyone to make Raises.

John

As the handbook states it says it adds a flat 5 to make raises (plural, so it should apply to all raises you want to make). Hence why it is a problem.

Could you cite the page where it says "Adds a flat 5 to make Raises (plural)"?

Page 146: At 4 Ranks, you gain the ability to earn 2 Raises per set by creating sets of 15, rather than only 1 Raise per set for creating a set of 10.

Page 177 says: "Increase the total needed for a Raise by 5 for a Risk or Round. This affects all Heroes in the Scene." (Danger point explanation)

So "for a Raise" means all single raises are affected? Or how do we read that?

A) And that would imply that with the 4th Skill dot you'll add 5 to the initial raise and then 5 more because that's what the 4th dot implies that happens.

Or

B) You inferr that every raise is affected in such a manner?

So, under A) You'll need 15 to make the first raise and then 10 for every other raise you can generate.

And under B) You'll need to make batches of 15 for each raise you generate.

And the question is. You rule that 4th dot ignores the Danger point (too strong), Which is basically what happens when you consider that 20 is what you'll need to generate 2 raises when affected by a Danger Point. Because if you roll a 40, will you have rolled 4 raises and thus not being affected by the Danger point, or you will need 50 to generate 4 raises. (15 for the first and 10 for the second, effectively considering the 4th dot gives you a bonus of 5 for a second raise.

The part I don't like is that under a Danger Point scenario that someone with 4 Ranks basically has no 'penalty' for most of their Raises (Since needing 20 for 2 Raises is basically for many situations having a Raise cost 10).

Without the danger point situation, 1 raise is default TN and 2 raises is an easier TN. With the danger point active, 1 raise is harder and 2 raises is no longer easier but normal. It's like increasing the difficulty 1 step for each set. I think the "penalty" resides in needing 20 for 2 raises. That might probably require 3 or 4 die unless you are lucky and I think it's harder if you just want to reach exactly 20.

Needing 20 for 2 raises isn't really a penalty. You can still make 1 raise with 15. 2 for 20 is even better than 1 for 10 as the number of dice rolled goes up.

John

Increase the total needed for a Raise by 5 for a Risk or Round. This affects all Heroes in the Scene. (pg 177)

With this what I understand is that whenever you make 1 raise, instead of 10, it becomes 15. I think we all agree with this.

When you have a skill at 4, it tells you this "At 4 Ranks, you gain the ability to earn 2 Raises per set by creating sets of 15, rather than only 1 Raise per set for creating a set of 10." It does not say that it is giving you a -5 TN to making raises but is saying that from now on, you may get 2 raises with a TN of 15 or 1 raise with a TN of 10. With that, what happens with the "increase the total needed" becomes something like 15 for 1 raise and 20 for 2 raises because it is basically saying +5 TN to the total needed for a raise.

All this if I understand it right XD

Using the logic that it's not giving you a -5 bonus to making 2 raises, the case can still be made for 2 Raises at sets of 25 under Danger Point scenario.

The Danger Point spent says that the total needed to make a (1) Raise is increased by 5.

If we consider the 4 Ranks to be make 2 Raises for 15, then unde Danger Point you'd need to increase each of those Raises by 5, which would then give a set of 25.

I'm not saying this is RAW or even what was intended. However, in the absence of official ruling it is more palatable for me as a GM to use 2 Raises for 25 rather than 20 I my games.

John

I'm kind of surprised nobody has suggested this, because while the math clearly doesn't quite line up, it seems like easily the simplest solution: just have the first danger point negate the bonus from the rank 4 skill, and go from there. That's probably what I'd do if I were to GM, for simplicity's sake.