Going back to the simpiler route, and re-reading @brianfeister comments, here’s a very simple, only slightly more complex method:
#Hard Core Resist Banes
For a more “hard core” feel, replace the following for Resist Banes:
You can use a move action to recover from one or more banes afflicting you. This move action cost is a simplified way of representing any number of different ways you might go about shaking off the wide range of banes you might be afflicted by. Roll 1d20 (with no attribute modifiers) for each bane afflicting you. If your roll is:
12 or higher for PL 1-5 banes
14 or higher for PL 6+ banes
then the bane is removed. Note that some banes have different rules for how they can be resisted.
Many banes will persist for a longer duration after three failed resist attempts to shake them off. As such, you should keep a tally of any banes which you to fail resist.
Note that Resist Bane is not an Attribute Roll, and as such can have more than one instance of (dis)advantage stacked to it at the GMs discretion. Some examples of:
###Advantage
Various Feats that give Advantage to resist
Foregoing your Major and Minor actions to preform a Superior Resist Bane
Special conditions, character strengths, or character backstory that make sense for the narrative
###Disadvantage
Various Feats that give Disadvantage to resist
A Bane Attack that beat the targeted defense by 10+
Special conditions, character weaknesses, or character backstory that make sense for the narrative
EDIT
Note this means PL 1-5 banes have a 45% chance to resist
PL 6+ banes have a 35% chance to resist
My reasoning for making 6+ for the higher level instead of 5+ is a level 1 character has access to PL 5 banes (in some cases PL 6 via a weapon, but that is still as intended). Could easily be 1-4 and 5+ though.
I think this is the most straight forward suggestion - moves the needle in the direction we want without over-complicating or changing rules too drastically.
I am a huge fan of this. They seem way too easy to overcome at the moment.
What about even further spreading it. If a 3 is an “average” stat, how about setting the CR as 7 + PL.
This gives banes a range from 7-16 CR based on PL. Just a thought, but I like where you are going with this. I have thought it needs some tweaking.
Focused Resist is what i was thinking as i was reading through this thread, great minds :P.
I think there is some wording in the rules that make it sounds like the two are mutually exclusive, not just unsaid, but i dont have my pdf on me right now to check.
These suggestions are quite interesting. I like both the idea of making the bane attack matter more, which would make low level banes work more, as well as the simplified approach with higher CRs, the only thing I don’t like about the d20 approach is that attributes still don’t matter.
I’ve just finished reading this whole thread…and let me prefix by saying that I’ve not actually played OL yet (timing sucks).
I agree with @Daranar that it is best to take attributes into account. So most likely, after I try with the straight d20 >= 10 resist rolls, I’ll try @Great_Moustache’s Alternative Resist Banes. It makes the most sense to me while still being simple. It seems (again, with no experience to back this up) to be the most balanced, as well.
One way would be to also have it to be a minimum of 10 or if the result of 10 + invocure level - resistor level woul be higher then use that number instead.
Read through a lot of these and I saw similar, but not sure if I saw this suggestion:
Resist CR = 8+PL*2 for a range of 10-26.
Attribute used to resist is based on the defense targeted by the bane as follows (the player chooses either choice):
Guard = Agility or Might
Toughness = Fortitude or Will
Resolve = Will or Presence
Result:
*Less important attributes such as Fortitude, Will, and Presence now have more significance.
*Builds now create strengths and weaknesses against specific banes. This creates more room for fun
experimentation when fighting monsters to expose those weaknesses and overcome their strengths. It also makes certain characters weak or strong against certain monsters thus adding flavor to specialized characters like a paladin which is built to overcome the strengths and expose the weaknesses of undead.
*Bolster can now help you overcome the bane attacks of monsters.
*Because this works both ways, for the monsters and the characters, it does not upset the balance of the system.
Repercussions:
Currently, the only issue I can see with this is a decrease in the effectiveness of the Potent bane feat and anything else that gives advantage/disadvantage to resist. As it is now, disadvantage 1 gives the lower result of two d20 rolls. Changing this would result in only applying disadvantage to the attribute dice. The feats may have to be adjusted because of this.
Just my 2 cents on the approach I would take to ammend this.
So, if Attribute Rolls were used for resisting, then the only thing that should give advantage/disadvantage are:
Feats (Potent, Resilient, and Hospitlar for example)
Superior Action
Exceptional Success
Otherwise the feats are less useful. And it makes sense that other forms wouldn’t give advantage to resist.
The added complexity is just too much to make it fun, IMHO.
If you want to use an attribute roll for a bane, do it via the Defend Action (which can benefit from bolster) when the bane attack happens. Otherwise, I suggest using the CR of 12/15 instead, and going with exceptional success on a bane attack gives disadvantage.
I’m unsure if you meant character level or attribute level, but the latter could work as a very simple way of including attributes as minor factors.
The idea you gave me would be that the DC to resist is 10 + the attribute score used to invoke the bane - the attribute used to defend against it (not used to defend in dice, just in fluff), though it can’t go below 10.
So if an elementalist with energy 6 would fight a hero with might 5 and movement 3, and the elementalist would freeze the hero’s legs (immobile) and set his upper body aflame (persistent damage), both using his energy score of 6, the hero would attempt to resist both:
This hero obviously tries to use his greatest strength, his physical might, to his advantage. He immediately decides to simply smash the ice to break his legs free, so the DM allows him to substract his might score from the DC, but he can’t think of a way to use his might to extinguish the flame, so he chooses to use a brief vacuum with his control over air instead, so the DM allows him to substract his movement score from the DC.
He simply rolls a d20 for each bane he attempts to resist, but his DC for Immobile would be 11 (10 base +6 energy -5 might) while the DC for Persistent Damage would be 13 (10 base +6 energy -3 movement).
I think this would keep it simple enough, and it would generally make banes slightly harder to resist, while rewarding players who describe how their characters attempt to fight off these debilitations, likely resulting in a more descriptive combat and more satisfaction when players play the scene of their (hopefully) success in their minds.
P.S. Why do I always feel the need to write such long-winded comments even if the idea is so simple (at least in my mind)?
from 