Not a Fan of the Resist Banes Mechanic

Given that the normal defense scores represent the primary resistance against Banes, you could consider raising the Resist DC by 2 for every five or ten points over their defense. Add in a bit of baked-in scaling off of exceptional success for that type of attack that’s not too heavy a touch.

Oh, or something like getting Disadvantage on the first Resist roll should it exceed their defense by ten!
This would also stack in a rather showy and dramatic way with Potent Bane.

Bolster is keyed to action rolls of a specific attribute, so it wouldn’t apply to Resist Bane rolls outside of some GM adjudication.
They’re still action rolls, I believe. Otherwise @brianfeister’s suggestion of using Focus Action for it wouldn’t work.

1 Like

My two cents:

It’s interesting to treat it as a regular attack, so that if you want to resist multiple, regular multi-attack rules would apply. As with anything in OL, it would have to make sense with the attribute they are using to resist the specific bane. Then apply disadvantage.

That is the simplest approach, for sure. The only argument I have against actively resisting multiple banes is that it is more complicated, but if you are doing it as a major action, there’s really no reason to prevent multiple resists following the regular combat rules…

I would think so… unless you wanted to give disadvantage 2 against active resist, but here I am adding complexity again :slight_smile: I think the CR scale I am planning to use makes it pretty hard the higher level the bane gets.

Like @grokmonkey said, I think if your bolster affects the attribute you are using to resist, the advantage should apply to an active resist roll. I would treat them as regular/major actions because the rules applying there are already solid.

I like this, but again, trying to find the balance between making banes a little more fun and character-driven and making it a big new chunk of rules to remember is tough. I do think it’s a valid point though, that if you roll a 70 on a bane attack it does nothing more than rolling Defense + 1. But you can always add these twists into your own game…

So another thing to consider for all this.

You can apply a bane with an exceptional success. This means you never really rolled for the bane that you apply in this way.

Resist Rolls are not considered action rolls as they are presently in the core rules.

You have to presently resist each bane separately, so I would assume that would continue, even with passive/active.

I feel like passive/active resists should be a special type of action roll that can only be affected for advantage/disadvantage via feats (hospitaler, resilience, etc). Focus action wouldn’t be possible unless you forgo the passive resist I suppose? That creates something interesting, as passive implies that it auto-happens in many cases.

Yeah, I think @grokmonkey was suggesting exceptional success-like options for Bane Attack rolls, but this seems like i could get complicated pretty easily. There may be something there, though. Couple thoughts I’m not at all in love with:

  1. Extra disadvantage on resist for every 10 points over the defense? No one probably wants to manage that) Potent Bane is probably good enough there.
  2. Track original bane roll and you have to beat it to resist (similar to defense action). Sounds way overpowered.
  3. Roll 10 (or a larger number?) over the targeted defense and auto-invoke potent bane? This might work as it’s fairly simple…

But I’m not sold that any of the above are necessary.

Currently a resist takes up your Move action , and a success allows you a free action to move 15’. (EDIT: this is incorrect, only some banes allow this). That could stay the same for Passive Resist (and I think it probably does make sense to only allow one passive resist per turn). For an active resist, it probably makes sense to be a major action, and you can focus it by giving up your move/passive resist? Without focus, you could conceivably passive resist and active resist on the same round - not sure if that makes sense.

1 Like

No no.

If I do a Damaging Attack and it is exceptional success, I get to apply a bane for free. This is what I am talking about, that bane was never rolled on, the damaging attack was.

This is incorrect. You do not get half your movement for resisting any bane. There are a few select banes were this would apply. Knockdown you aren’t resisting, you are just using half your movement to get up.

Doing a resist bane takes up your move action, and you can resist every bane affecting you, but each bane you roll a separate resist roll to remove/shake off.

1 Like

I understood what you meant, but maybe I wasn’t clear. @grokmonkey was talking about “exceptional success”-like effects for Bane Attack rolls. I was saying that feels like it could get too complicated, e.g. adding disadvantage to resist based on how well you roll a non-damaging Bane Attack. My three options were related to that point.

You are right. I conflated the Immobile bane rules I was looking at the other day with the resist bane rules. I’ll edit that part, but the general idea stays the same.

1 Like

I actually like this, and think I might pull it to use for the Core Rules as they are now in my games.


I went ahead and took a stab at updating a fork of the Core Rules with active and passive resist rolls, as well as the Potent Bane effect.

I certainly don’t expect everyone to be into this approach. I’m open to feedback, but if your feedback is just that you don’t want to use these mechanics, that’s fine, but not gonna help me much. :slight_smile: I’m just sharing for those interested in trying it out and/or improving it.

I think I like the idea better of having a resist roll for PL 1-4, and the PL 5-9 better than doing a straight up PL of bane thing.

Couple reasons for this:

  1. When inflicting the bane, how well you attack with it (the action roll) doesn’t have anything to do with the PL of the bane, like boons do. You can get a roll of 14 to succeed vs Resolve, even though the bane is PL 9.

  2. Banes can be inflicted via exceptional Success and don’t require a roll or have anything to do with their PL for inflicting it.

I think I see what you are doing with making the Active Resist be a major action and keeping passive as move action, but I feel like it is still too easy to resist a bane via Passive, and no a lot easier to do it with Active. This causes it to not change your original concern with how easy it is to throw off banes. The only thing added is using your Attributes to do the resist.

Also, currently in that link you shared, you have no mention in Active resist what you are rolling (an Attribute). So it is a bit unclear.

#Simple Banes
These are banes of Power Level 1-4
Minor Resist CR: 15
Major Resist CR: 20

#Strong Banes
These are banes of Power Level 5-8
Minor Resist CR: 18
Major Resist CR: 28

#Superior Banes
These are banes of Power Level 9
Minor Resist CR: 21
Major Resist CR: 30

#Minor Resist Roll
This is a minor action you may take on your turn to throw off the bane(s) that are afflicting you. When you choose to take this minor action, roll a separate d20 for each bane afflicting you. If you beat the Minor Resist CR of the bane, you successfully throw it off.

This type of roll does not gain (dis)advantage except from feats that directly mention resisting banes. At the GMs discretion, other factors might allow (dis)advantage.

#Major Resist Roll
This is a major action you may take on your turn to throw off the bane(s) that are afflicting you. When you choose to take this major action, roll from Fortitude, Will, or Presence for each bane afflicting you. Choose the Attribute based on what makes the most sense for the bane and/or the narrative. If you beat the Major Resist CR of the bane, you successfully throw it off.

You may choose to do this as a Superior Action, gaining Advantage 1 to the roll. This means you forgo the Minor Resist Roll, as per Superior Action.

So a couple things here.

##Why the CR values?

  1. Making it more difficult to throw off banes.

  2. With the tiers of resist CR, based off the highest value of the tier.

  3. As the Minor Resist Roll can be done via minor action, this makes each resist slightly harder. 15 = 30% chance | 18 = 15% chance | 21 = 5% (debated making this 22, 21 & 20 there is no real difference, but looks more impressive)

  4. With Major Resist Roll you can have advantage from other sources to beef it up. Increased the CR to be 2 over the normal Average CR for the Attribute. This makes it a little harder, but is negated by advantage.

  • Average CR of Attribute 4 = 18 + 2 = 20
  • Average CR of Attribute 8 = 26 + 2 = 28
  • Average CR of Attribute 9 = 28 + 2 = 30

##Why a Minor action instead of Move

  1. Due to the increased difficulty, it is less likely to throw it off via Minor Resist Roll

  2. I could easily see this being a Move Action still, but modifying the CRs as follows:

  • Simple Banes = CR 13 (40% success) OR CR 14 (35%)
  • Strong Banes = CR 16 (25% success) OR CR 17 (20%)
  • Superior Banes = CR 19 (10% success) OR CR 20 (5%)

Note, if you aren’t worried about making it harder to resist, Instead the CRs could be based on the mid range (PL 2.5 for Simple, PL 6.5 for Strong, PL 9 for Superior).

1 Like

Some points worth considering, for sure. I’m not immediately in love with grouping multiple PL banes together with one CR, but I also kind of agree with your point that my CR system may be overkill. Gonna stew on that for a while…

Oh, I also think your names of “Minor Resist” and “Major Resist” may be an improvement over Active/Passive since you are still rolling and you can choose NOT to resist, and instead use your move or a focus action, so that’s not very passive :slight_smile:

1 Like

you know, another big problem with all of this.

3 fails = ???

You have 2 different types of resists, so… how do the fails count? Across both types?

If you want to change this, should you even keep the Minor Resist at all? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have 1 for less complexity since you are adding more complexity with the attribute roll.

Ok… so:

#How to make Resisting Banes more meaningful for the Player

  • Using Attribute Dice for Rolling
  • Limit to just a select few (Fortitude, Will, Presence, Protection)
  • All Attributes are open

#How to make Resisting Banes more difficult

  • Higher CR for normal resist roll (just d20
  • Tiered Resist level (Groups of 1-4, 5-8, 9, or other)
  • Contested Roll
  • More Banes you have the higher the CR for resisting

#How to do the above but keep it simple

  • Only 1 Resist roll as a move action
  • Allow Resist roll to benefit from Superior Action
  • Set Resist CRs so no calculating on the go, easy to remember

Those are a few of my thoughts.

1 Like

Good points. Still need to sit with it a bit. One idea I had - make Major resist a little more likely to succeed (probably by using the same scale for Major or Minor - either by using my 10 + PL idea or your tiered CR idea) BUT if you attempt a Major Resist and fail, you lose all other chances to resist and suffer the effects of failing to resist that bane per the bane description…

I’d definitely vote for leaving all open and up to GM’s judgment, because IMO you can resist banes like Immobile with Agility or Might…

OK, might as well just brain dump as I process this. I still don’t love minor resists because, to me, it just feels antithetical to the rest of OL gameplay to roll a single d20 and have it not be tied to your character’s attributes. Feels random even if the odds decrease from 55%.

So, I like the idea of making any resist use an attribute roll. Maybe that is a basic idea - just replace the current resist mechanic with an attribute roll against a more difficult CR scale.

We could leave it there - still uses your move action, all rules stay the same. Or, for additional fun, one could add the idea of a Major resist where you use your Major Action and get ADV 1, or even ADV 2 if you do a Focus Action. But any Major Resist is success/fail and you get no second chance.

This wouldn’t work, b/c the banes themselves define how many resist fails = something. Leave it to the bane description for that.

So, I didn’t fully expand it int he quick bullet points, b/c that is what it is for, quick bullet points for rough/basic ideas, but, even if you limit it to just the main four attributes (which make the most sense for nearly all banes), there is always the option of using another attribute for something. Just like for making a damaging attack. Normally there are the ones listed, but with a good reasoning/narrative other Attributes make be able to make damaing attacks.

Reference what I typed for the major resist above a few:

When you choose to take this major action, roll from Fortitude, Will, or Presence for each bane afflicting you. Choose the Attribute based on what makes the most sense for the bane and/or the narrative.

The idea is to narrow the vision a bit to those first. Naturally, certain things might make sense for another attribute to step in.

Not if you changed it so that the limit is for minor resist only :slight_smile: But I gather you’re not a fan of that idea!

I’m just brainstorming, too, so no worries on my end about fleshing thoughts as we go. It’s fun to think through it. These conversations give me a much deeper understanding of the rules even if none of my ideas pan out :slight_smile:

I don’t know that I see the necessity to limit it either with suggestion or actual rules, but if you wanted to follow precedent, attacks are divided into Physical or Non-Physical and you must have >= 1 in a non-physical attribute to use it. You could have a similar grouping of Defensive/Offensive or something. But that may be splitting hairs. Either way, there’s how it’s written, and how I’d play it, which is, if you you can make a convincing narrative for resisting with X attribute, I’d allow it.

These are the ideas that I’m still drawn to, some of which are going back to earlier ideas which may bring the wrath of the Moustache upon me. :wink: Please slap a big, sincere IMHO sticker on each of these points :slight_smile:

  • I still like the idea of CR = 10 + (2 * Bane's PL). I like this because it makes banes harder to resist, and it is in line with other rules that use a similar calculation. In my rough tests/math it seems to scale well with increasing levels. Grouping PLs into CR tiers adds another unique rule to remember and gives PL less meaning.
  • I like the idea of a Minor Resist and a Major Resist. Actually, I keep coming back to just treating it as a regular action, where:
    • Minor Resist uses a minor action (NO ADV) (minor resist using move action is bound to confuse people, though I’m sure there is a reason that was done for regular resists)
    • Major Resist uses a major action (ADV 1)
    • Focused Resist uses Major, Minor, and Move. (ADV 2)
  • I still like the idea of succeeding by >= 10 on a Bane Attack gives DISADV 1 on resist, though would concede this for simplicity sake, as I know it’s a goal to not burden players with tracking too much info during combat.

I could also see minor being DISADV 1, Major ADV 0 and Focused ADV 1

already getting a huge advantage by using an attribute to resist, giving a flat adv 1 on top of attribute dice to resist something seems a bit much here.

I explained this a bit above. Originally it was just a minor action to resist banes, but that was something that could happen fairly easily, and as a result, inflicting banes had almost no meaning. But making it a move action, this caused you to have to give up your move action, which was a steeper cost, and made banes have more to them.

plus I have to keep going back to your original complaint that resisting banes is too easy, and this only makes it even easier.

I added a note at the end, as you were typing and I was getting work calls I had to take :slight_smile: Maybe it should be Minor: -1, Major: 0, Focused: 1. More in line with regular Focused advantage.

Giving up the move action doesn’t seem like a huge penalty (or maybe it would affect some archetypes more than others) because many banes will be during toe-to-toe combat where you likely aren’t going anywhere anyway, unless you want to take an opportunity attack.

Remember, we were starting from a flat 55% probability you resist. I don’t have time to do mega math at the moment, but with my CR scale, you start out with a solid chance of resisting low level banes, but it gets harder. I wonder how much easier it is and or if it’s a linear or logarithmic scale… But yes, if it is better odds across the board, then I am hurting my own purpose :slight_smile:

The disadvantage on a minor resist, and adding an additional disadvantage for a >= 10 success on a bane attack might help too. Might have to get into some scripting and calculating later :slight_smile: