I have nothing to add to the conversation, I'd just like to mention that hentai in the gif is amazing.

Gibe da sauce, pls.

Itadaki seieki

Thanks.

Dig what you dig, mate. Don't let others, or their weird bullshit, discourage you from liking the things. Then you just become one of these salty faggot hipsters FJ is riddled with lately.

Except they already did because no one wanted a long and costly land battle in Japan's mainland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetalia:_Axis_Powers

I forgot about Hetalia.

Hell, I even have firsthand experience with WWII fan art. When I was in high school I drew some friends and I as historical figures, including myself as Erwin Rommel. I think I still have them somewhere, but don't have any way to scan them.

I have nothing to add to the conversation, I'd just like to mention that hentai in the gif is amazing.

Gibe da sauce, pls.

Itadaki seieki

Thanks.

Dig what you dig, mate. Don't let others, or their weird bullshit, discourage you from liking the things. Then you just become one of these salty faggot hipsters FJ is riddled with lately.

Wait... Deadpool was worthy?

Well fuck, you're right. But, still, it turned him into Thorpool, at least, which was my main point.

Also mutants were never really meant to symbolize any particular group of people, just oppressed or misunderstood people in general. You can see them as representing civil rights for any people in any era that way

Originally their plight was meant to represent racial discrimination, but with runs like New X-Men it's pretty clear there's a bit more emphasis on LGBT issues. It even makes more sense in that context, people who can't help being born as they are and must hide it from society or suffer persecution rings a bit truer for homosexuals than people of color in my estimation.

You can say that for Jews too. Opressed people, people made to feel ashamed for who they are, people who are feared, etc. X-Men represent all these kinds of people, not just the homos

Few more things:

FemThor is indeed shit

Kamala is pretty bland and annoying

Miles is fine, but Marvel is indeed replacing Peter with him in the 616 universe last I checked

Seems shaky, given the tone of New X-Men and the design of a lot of its minor characters, as well as the sub-plot of Beast saying he was gay. In newer stuff, you've even got a gay Iceman, and they did that big event where Marvel's premiere homo, Northstar, got married. The premise nowadays is much more aimed at LGBT, and in a few years that will probably need to change once again as tolerance prevails. With religious intolerance on the rise, I'd expect that to be the X-Men franchise' next platform.

Can you post links or pics of FemThor being shit? Even if she is shit, though, nobody seems to hate her for being shit, just being a woman. It's the same kind of shit SJWs bitch about, just from the opposite end of the spectrum, and it's equally dumb.

Kamala definitely has a different target audience than what I prefer to read, but from what I have seen she seems like a fun character. Links/pics of her being bland and annoying?

Considering they're not pushing for Miles to be movie Spidey, I kinda doubt they'd make him go-to comic book Spidey. In fact, a new run of Parker Spiderman started not too long ago where he and MJ are married and have a kid. How is he being replaced if he's still Spiderman and has a new book out?

Not shaky. That's always been the appeal if the X-Men, they always represent the mistreated outsiders of society, not just one group in particular

The big problem with Thor was that he had a very good run before FemThor. Then loldiversity and he was booted out for someone who doesn't really exist for more than political reasons. When fans complained that they were doing a beloved character a diservice for no reason, Marvel responded pretty much by labeling them as whiney sexists

i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/1250831501866273167.jpg

It's harder to find specifically annoying moments with Kamala, but so far she's felt like what an adult thinks a teenager her age acts. All "quirky" and fangirling over the other superheroes. There's been quite a few characters like her in Marvel, but she doesn't really bring anything new to the table other than the fact she's Muslim, which again feels more like another publicity stunt. "Look guys she's Muslim! We're with the times!"

They are most definitely replacing Peter with Miles

www.avclub.com/article/spider-man-now-miles-morales-news-internet-will-no-221165

I'm not arguing it, just answering your question

but femthor is a shit character (the current femthor, there might have been other ones)

I wouldn't know, honestly. I haven't had the opportunity to read FemThor. The panels I've seen seem fine, though. All the bitching about it is the exact kind of bitching the alleged SJWs do, either way, and that's just stupid.

Welcome to FJ, where we often act exactly like the people we hate. But it's cool when we do it cause we're right.

"That didn't stop him from taking on the Avengers by himself and winning."
Erhhh... no.
Loki took on Captain America and nearly won.
Loki got beaten by Hulk alone.
It was Loki's army that took on the entire team and nearly won. Therefor not on his own.

And you are partly right about being a henchman does not take value away... from some villains.
I always saw Loki as a leader, as a person who is the one making the decisions and manipulating others to do his will, whether unknown or known to the manipulated person.
I don't see Loki as one that goes on his knees and says 'yes my master' to anyone. Not even Thanos.
I mean... try to imagine the Joker going out, destroying Gotham and in the end it is revealed he was doing it to please Bane. Kind of diminishes his character a bit, right?

Basically. It was not Loki who posed a threat. He was easily taken care of.
It was the army given to Loki by Thanos that posed a threat. Without the army, Loki would have been nothing in the movie.

I was talking about Taskmaster, hence why that was a separate paragraph.

Loki never got on his knees. Even if neither saw it that way, with Thanos thinking he was being a benevolent god granting some power to a weaker servant, or Loki manipulating Thanos into giving him free shit, they both thought they were the bigger man in that arrangement.

Loki underestimated the Avengers, and got whooped by Hulk, but he was the manipulator. As I said, he nearly got them to kill each other FOR him, all while keeping them convinced they were the ones who were winning. That's quite the masterstroke.

But they weren't even close to killing each other. Yes. Iron Man and Thor duked it out for a few minutes without any major injuries and Iron Man and Captain America had a bit of a cock-fight, but that was the most of it all. He did more damage to SHIELD than he did to the Avengers.
At worst he was, partly, the cause of the Hulk being released, but even then none of the avengers came close to dying from that little episode.

I guess it might just be me, who was not really impressed by Loki personally. I honestly thought Ultron was a much bigger threat to the world than Loki came close to.

Well, yeah, it was the sequel. They had to step up their game.

But, Thor was nearly killed by the drop pod cage, and might have been killed by Hulk if things had gone worse.

All in all, it was a pretty good plan. But, family movie, heroes gotta win. It's understandable.

I doubt the Hulk could defeat Thor, at least in the movie-verse.
They are shown, to some extend, to be pretty equal in battle.
Hulk got the brute strength.
Thor can fly and has his hammer as well as strategy rather than mindless charging.
I can't argue against the drop pod cage, other than saying we have no evidence it could kill Loki or Thor. All we got was Nick saying it could kill Loki, which might have been a bluff at best. Weak argument, but the best I could come up with.

Thor was pretty eager to get out of there and not find out, so let's assume he would have at least been brutally maimed or crippled, if not dead.

Yeah. As said it was a weak argument at best.
Either way, a good movie despite my thoughts on Loki.
Not a... bad villain, just not as godly good as most fans makes him out to be.

I think he was awesome in part because Tom Hiddleston is a really great actor for the part.

Now that I agree with.
The actor was awesome and fit the role perfectly. It was the writing for the character I enjoyed less. (story-wise. His lines were also awesome)

Think he's referring to FemThor, black Cap, latino Spidey, muslim Ms. Marvel, tons of LGBT characters, etc.

FemThor - Different character. Mjolnir has always turned people who aren't Thor into Thor'd up versions of themselves. It even happened to Deadpool.

Black Cap - Falcon is a longstanding ally of Cap and has been in the comics for decades. It only makes sense for him to take up the mantle if Cap is looking to pass it on.

Latino Spidey - Different universe. Peter Parker is still Spiderman in the main universe.

Muslim Ms. Marvel - Why does it matter? She's a neat character, and Carol Danvers is now CAPTAIN MARVEL. The original got a promotion.

The Marvel universe has always had tons of LGBT characters. Besides, what do you think "mutants" are a metaphor for nowadays?

Wait... Deadpool was worthy?

Well fuck, you're right. But, still, it turned him into Thorpool, at least, which was my main point.

Also mutants were never really meant to symbolize any particular group of people, just oppressed or misunderstood people in general. You can see them as representing civil rights for any people in any era that way

Originally their plight was meant to represent racial discrimination, but with runs like New X-Men it's pretty clear there's a bit more emphasis on LGBT issues. It even makes more sense in that context, people who can't help being born as they are and must hide it from society or suffer persecution rings a bit truer for homosexuals than people of color in my estimation.

You can say that for Jews too. Opressed people, people made to feel ashamed for who they are, people who are feared, etc. X-Men represent all these kinds of people, not just the homos

Few more things:

FemThor is indeed shit

Kamala is pretty bland and annoying

Miles is fine, but Marvel is indeed replacing Peter with him in the 616 universe last I checked

Seems shaky, given the tone of New X-Men and the design of a lot of its minor characters, as well as the sub-plot of Beast saying he was gay. In newer stuff, you've even got a gay Iceman, and they did that big event where Marvel's premiere homo, Northstar, got married. The premise nowadays is much more aimed at LGBT, and in a few years that will probably need to change once again as tolerance prevails. With religious intolerance on the rise, I'd expect that to be the X-Men franchise' next platform.

Can you post links or pics of FemThor being shit? Even if she is shit, though, nobody seems to hate her for being shit, just being a woman. It's the same kind of shit SJWs bitch about, just from the opposite end of the spectrum, and it's equally dumb.

Kamala definitely has a different target audience than what I prefer to read, but from what I have seen she seems like a fun character. Links/pics of her being bland and annoying?

Considering they're not pushing for Miles to be movie Spidey, I kinda doubt they'd make him go-to comic book Spidey. In fact, a new run of Parker Spiderman started not too long ago where he and MJ are married and have a kid. How is he being replaced if he's still Spiderman and has a new book out?

Not shaky. That's always been the appeal if the X-Men, they always represent the mistreated outsiders of society, not just one group in particular

The big problem with Thor was that he had a very good run before FemThor. Then loldiversity and he was booted out for someone who doesn't really exist for more than political reasons. When fans complained that they were doing a beloved character a diservice for no reason, Marvel responded pretty much by labeling them as whiney sexists

i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/1250831501866273167.jpg

It's harder to find specifically annoying moments with Kamala, but so far she's felt like what an adult thinks a teenager her age acts. All "quirky" and fangirling over the other superheroes. There's been quite a few characters like her in Marvel, but she doesn't really bring anything new to the table other than the fact she's Muslim, which again feels more like another publicity stunt. "Look guys she's Muslim! We're with the times!"

They are most definitely replacing Peter with Miles

www.avclub.com/article/spider-man-now-miles-morales-news-internet-will-no-221165

I'm not arguing it, just answering your question

but femthor is a shit character (the current femthor, there might have been other ones)

I wouldn't know, honestly. I haven't had the opportunity to read FemThor. The panels I've seen seem fine, though. All the bitching about it is the exact kind of bitching the alleged SJWs do, either way, and that's just stupid.

Welcome to FJ, where we often act exactly like the people we hate. But it's cool when we do it cause we're right.

Oh, I fully know and is the first to admit that Odin is a terrible father. One of the worst.
But I also believe that the actions of the father does not mean the raised child gets a free pass for future actions.
Loki has a somewhat sad backstory that could be expanded upon in the movie-universe, but I still don't enjoy him as a character.

Actually my main problem with Loki was that he was a lapdog for another main villain. He was not a villain. He was a minion for a villain. A henchman. A grunt.
That kind of takes major points off in the whole 'threatening-villain' part of him.

Well, naturally, Loki's crimes aren't okay just because Odin would do the same shit. My point is he was raised to do what Odin does and think of it as the burden of leadership. He was raised to act this way, and then when he started behaving like he thought he was supposed to, everybody was like whoa Loki you're crazy and didn't bother to explain why. Just as frustrating as finding out you'll never amount to anything because you're an inferior species. Really, Loki was only wrong because, unlike Odin, his plans didn't succeed. Now, he IS Odin, and nobody can even tell the fucking difference. Food for thought.

Villain alliances don't somehow diminish the villains taking part. That's silly. And, hell, being a henchman isn't even a deal breaker. Taskmaster is a professional henchman who trains other henchmen. That didn't stop him from taking on the Avengers by himself and winning. He's a badass. Period.

Likewise, Loki took down all of SHIELD's resources and nearly had the Avengers murder each other. Him making a deal with Thanos was irrelevant to the threat he posed.

"That didn't stop him from taking on the Avengers by himself and winning."
Erhhh... no.
Loki took on Captain America and nearly won.
Loki got beaten by Hulk alone.
It was Loki's army that took on the entire team and nearly won. Therefor not on his own.

And you are partly right about being a henchman does not take value away... from some villains.
I always saw Loki as a leader, as a person who is the one making the decisions and manipulating others to do his will, whether unknown or known to the manipulated person.
I don't see Loki as one that goes on his knees and says 'yes my master' to anyone. Not even Thanos.
I mean... try to imagine the Joker going out, destroying Gotham and in the end it is revealed he was doing it to please Bane. Kind of diminishes his character a bit, right?

Basically. It was not Loki who posed a threat. He was easily taken care of.
It was the army given to Loki by Thanos that posed a threat. Without the army, Loki would have been nothing in the movie.

I was talking about Taskmaster, hence why that was a separate paragraph.

Loki never got on his knees. Even if neither saw it that way, with Thanos thinking he was being a benevolent god granting some power to a weaker servant, or Loki manipulating Thanos into giving him free shit, they both thought they were the bigger man in that arrangement.

Loki underestimated the Avengers, and got whooped by Hulk, but he was the manipulator. As I said, he nearly got them to kill each other FOR him, all while keeping them convinced they were the ones who were winning. That's quite the masterstroke.

But they weren't even close to killing each other. Yes. Iron Man and Thor duked it out for a few minutes without any major injuries and Iron Man and Captain America had a bit of a cock-fight, but that was the most of it all. He did more damage to SHIELD than he did to the Avengers.
At worst he was, partly, the cause of the Hulk being released, but even then none of the avengers came close to dying from that little episode.

I guess it might just be me, who was not really impressed by Loki personally. I honestly thought Ultron was a much bigger threat to the world than Loki came close to.

Well, yeah, it was the sequel. They had to step up their game.

But, Thor was nearly killed by the drop pod cage, and might have been killed by Hulk if things had gone worse.

All in all, it was a pretty good plan. But, family movie, heroes gotta win. It's understandable.

I doubt the Hulk could defeat Thor, at least in the movie-verse.
They are shown, to some extend, to be pretty equal in battle.
Hulk got the brute strength.
Thor can fly and has his hammer as well as strategy rather than mindless charging.
I can't argue against the drop pod cage, other than saying we have no evidence it could kill Loki or Thor. All we got was Nick saying it could kill Loki, which might have been a bluff at best. Weak argument, but the best I could come up with.

Thor was pretty eager to get out of there and not find out, so let's assume he would have at least been brutally maimed or crippled, if not dead.

Yeah. As said it was a weak argument at best.
Either way, a good movie despite my thoughts on Loki.
Not a... bad villain, just not as godly good as most fans makes him out to be.

I think he was awesome in part because Tom Hiddleston is a really great actor for the part.

Now that I agree with.
The actor was awesome and fit the role perfectly. It was the writing for the character I enjoyed less. (story-wise. His lines were also awesome)

Pissed off enough to try and take over the world and basically enslave all humanity, while killing several people in the process?

Yes. Loki was not treated fairly, but he overreacted wayyy too much and that kind of makes me question his skills as a leader in the first place.
'let me have my way with everything or I will turn into a tyrant and kill people I am trying to rule over!"

Granted. But, at the same time, it's really nothing Odin wouldn't do if he was taking back the throne from a usurper. Think of Odin in both movies, the wrath over disobedience (angrily banishing Thor in the first movie, then declaring him a traitor to be killed in order to stop him in the second), the ruthlessness in his decision-making (he was willing to let the dark elves lay siege to Asgard and kill many people in order to have home field advantage), and you basically have Loki except Odin is already king. Loki was merely raised to be his father's son, and when you deny Odin his throne, he fucks all of your shit up.

Oh, I fully know and is the first to admit that Odin is a terrible father. One of the worst.
But I also believe that the actions of the father does not mean the raised child gets a free pass for future actions.
Loki has a somewhat sad backstory that could be expanded upon in the movie-universe, but I still don't enjoy him as a character.

Actually my main problem with Loki was that he was a lapdog for another main villain. He was not a villain. He was a minion for a villain. A henchman. A grunt.
That kind of takes major points off in the whole 'threatening-villain' part of him.

Well, naturally, Loki's crimes aren't okay just because Odin would do the same shit. My point is he was raised to do what Odin does and think of it as the burden of leadership. He was raised to act this way, and then when he started behaving like he thought he was supposed to, everybody was like whoa Loki you're crazy and didn't bother to explain why. Just as frustrating as finding out you'll never amount to anything because you're an inferior species. Really, Loki was only wrong because, unlike Odin, his plans didn't succeed. Now, he IS Odin, and nobody can even tell the fucking difference. Food for thought.

Villain alliances don't somehow diminish the villains taking part. That's silly. And, hell, being a henchman isn't even a deal breaker. Taskmaster is a professional henchman who trains other henchmen. That didn't stop him from taking on the Avengers by himself and winning. He's a badass. Period.

Likewise, Loki took down all of SHIELD's resources and nearly had the Avengers murder each other. Him making a deal with Thanos was irrelevant to the threat he posed.

"That didn't stop him from taking on the Avengers by himself and winning."
Erhhh... no.
Loki took on Captain America and nearly won.
Loki got beaten by Hulk alone.
It was Loki's army that took on the entire team and nearly won. Therefor not on his own.

And you are partly right about being a henchman does not take value away... from some villains.
I always saw Loki as a leader, as a person who is the one making the decisions and manipulating others to do his will, whether unknown or known to the manipulated person.
I don't see Loki as one that goes on his knees and says 'yes my master' to anyone. Not even Thanos.
I mean... try to imagine the Joker going out, destroying Gotham and in the end it is revealed he was doing it to please Bane. Kind of diminishes his character a bit, right?

Basically. It was not Loki who posed a threat. He was easily taken care of.
It was the army given to Loki by Thanos that posed a threat. Without the army, Loki would have been nothing in the movie.

I was talking about Taskmaster, hence why that was a separate paragraph.

Loki never got on his knees. Even if neither saw it that way, with Thanos thinking he was being a benevolent god granting some power to a weaker servant, or Loki manipulating Thanos into giving him free shit, they both thought they were the bigger man in that arrangement.

Loki underestimated the Avengers, and got whooped by Hulk, but he was the manipulator. As I said, he nearly got them to kill each other FOR him, all while keeping them convinced they were the ones who were winning. That's quite the masterstroke.

But they weren't even close to killing each other. Yes. Iron Man and Thor duked it out for a few minutes without any major injuries and Iron Man and Captain America had a bit of a cock-fight, but that was the most of it all. He did more damage to SHIELD than he did to the Avengers.
At worst he was, partly, the cause of the Hulk being released, but even then none of the avengers came close to dying from that little episode.

I guess it might just be me, who was not really impressed by Loki personally. I honestly thought Ultron was a much bigger threat to the world than Loki came close to.

Well, yeah, it was the sequel. They had to step up their game.

But, Thor was nearly killed by the drop pod cage, and might have been killed by Hulk if things had gone worse.

All in all, it was a pretty good plan. But, family movie, heroes gotta win. It's understandable.

I doubt the Hulk could defeat Thor, at least in the movie-verse.
They are shown, to some extend, to be pretty equal in battle.
Hulk got the brute strength.
Thor can fly and has his hammer as well as strategy rather than mindless charging.
I can't argue against the drop pod cage, other than saying we have no evidence it could kill Loki or Thor. All we got was Nick saying it could kill Loki, which might have been a bluff at best. Weak argument, but the best I could come up with.

Thor was pretty eager to get out of there and not find out, so let's assume he would have at least been brutally maimed or crippled, if not dead.

Yeah. As said it was a weak argument at best.
Either way, a good movie despite my thoughts on Loki.
Not a... bad villain, just not as godly good as most fans makes him out to be.

I think he was awesome in part because Tom Hiddleston is a really great actor for the part.

Now that I agree with.
The actor was awesome and fit the role perfectly. It was the writing for the character I enjoyed less. (story-wise. His lines were also awesome)

Papa Franku is basically a living animumango character, himself, so I guess what you found is 1/3rd of a Twitter post.

>Papa Franku is basically a living

Yes I guess that is correct.

The Cold War.

Fucking fight me.

Except they already did because no one wanted a long and costly land battle in Japan's mainland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetalia:_Axis_Powers

I forgot about Hetalia.

Hell, I even have firsthand experience with WWII fan art. When I was in high school I drew some friends and I as historical figures, including myself as Erwin Rommel. I think I still have them somewhere, but don't have any way to scan them.

I have nothing to add to the conversation, I'd just like to mention that hentai in the gif is amazing.

Gibe da sauce, pls.

Itadaki seieki

Thanks.

Dig what you dig, mate. Don't let others, or their weird bullshit, discourage you from liking the things. Then you just become one of these salty faggot hipsters FJ is riddled with lately.

Ahegao.

Shut up.

His superior information processing speed and reflexes gave him time to get out of the way or push Widow out of the way and then lift his shield six inches. That's a lot more than any normal human would be able to do while a grenade is already in flight and zooming towards them. Getting out of the way would have let Widow get blown the fuck up. So, he took the option that made the most sense. You can't deflect a grenade that blows up when it hits something, so the best option is to brace yourself behind your indestructible shield.

So, no, it's not really retarded at all.

*DC 18 Fort save or die, a less than 35% chance of success.

Again, you're effective trying to come up with a bunch of patchwork, in order to make the system work. Nowhere in the books does it say study and training will increase your level, and why would that even make sense? So because I studied physics for three years, that qualifies me for a level in Wizard? For the extra health and feat, too? Where the hell did that come from? Useing the level system as it is, barely makes any sense, but rewarding experience for study barely does either. Its a stunted and very gamey system, that does serve to make the game more fun, but simultaneously more unrealistic and a worse roleplay.
Same can be said for your example with the Wizard. Nowhere does it say that I am allowed those automatic crits or coup de grace, so you're effectively trying to patchwork on a system that fundamentally ignores the realism of being stabbed. Even your example of "wait untill he sleeps" is an unrealistic shitfest. Say he sleeps, and I somehow manage to sneak up on him. I'm a level 1 peasant, with a really shitty 1d4 dagger. I slit his throat. I'll be doing around 8 damage, if I'm lucky. He is very likely to still make that fortitude save, so he just survived being stabbed in the throat in his fucking sleep. Realism! Roleplay! Immersion...! GONE!
Still explain to me, how his experiences with taking a blow will going help him not die from being murdered in his sleep, because the only logical conclusion, is that HP is abselutely how much meat and blood is in your body...
I know that as the system is written, thats not what it is, but these coup de grace rules are in direct conflict with how HP is otherwise repressented...

You can gain XP without fighting kobolds, because you don't even necessarily have to kill kobolds to gain the XP they're worth. You gain XP by overcoming challenges in some way, such as simply avoiding them through stealth and proceeding on with the dungeon. That's simply a fact of the system. You can be a level 2 Commoner who does nothing but farm, earning XP by overcoming the challenges of being a farmer, like working hard all year and bartering to get a good price for your crops. There's level 5+ Wizard NPCs who've never gone on a single adventure in their lives, but over time their studies and successful experiments earned them enough XP to get to that level. Extra Hit Points (again, not really "health") and extra feats or class features represent you putting together what you learned. You got a little luckier, a little more skilled at avoiding perils like exploding potions, particularly difficult and volatile magical item crafting, or called creatures that got a bit rowdy. Hence, more HP. You figured out some more arcane tricks and took Empowered Spell, or learned to be a little more diplomatic and intimidating when speaking with your apprentices and took Persuasive, etc.

Unless the Wizard is wearing his Cloak of Resistance +3 to bed, which would be very uncomfortable, he's looking at a base Fortitude save of +3. Maybe he's got a 12 Constitution and has a total of +4 Fort. With 8 damage, he's staring at a daunting DC 18 Fort save or die, a less than . If he rolls high, he lives, and either awoke and moved with startling swiftness to avoid the brunt of the slash, or is gripping his throat to staunch the bleeding of the bad but not mortal gash in his throat, and has time to take a turn and get the healing potion he keeps under the pillow he doesn't use and drink it. That's not even DM fiat or rules fudging. If something isn't killing you, your body is more or less whole. If you have 20 HP and somebody hits you for 21 with a greatsword, unless your Constitution is 1 that sword did not just cut off your arm or head, though you are bleeding out your life blood because you're at negative HP and therefore considered dying.

Anyway, in the end, the rules are merely guidelines, and are intended only to provide arbitration of the zany shenanigans magical weirdos get up to. The books encourage DMs to bend and break these guidelines as they see fit. Maybe the reason that Wizard grabbed a healing potion instead of simply vaporizing his attacker is because I, the DM, decided that his neck is literally split open and he's taking bleed damage every round. But, hell, this fucking peasant somehow got through every single trap and ward the Wizard had in place to prevent this very situation. Maybe he just deserves to auto-fail that save because one of my crazy-ass players rolled a really lucky peasant.

*DC 18 Fort save or die, a less than 35% chance of success.