Some wee lil questions

Hei lexy here, got some questions about the rules
-how can i diffrentiate the non physical attacks from ranged attacks besides changing defense used or the area of effect?
-there is a horrible lot of banes that are determined by agillity and might, making them pretty op and verstaile (like agillity is just op and gives access to attacks, most banes and initiative rolls), any good way to balance this?
-is it legitimate to limit the possible actions for each player to prevent abusing of the variety of the technically available banes

Hi Lexy, I’d be happy to help you out.

In game, the most immediately noticeable difference is in how the attack is described. There’s a huge separation between firing arrows from a bow and causing the shadows around your target to rise up and slice at them, for example.

The key mechanical difference between ranged and non-physical attacks is versatility. A ranged attack usually only has access to either single targets or one method of multi-targeting, a non-physical attack (usually from an Extraordinary attribute) can be melee, ranged, or use any kind of multi-target attack depending on what the attacker thinks is most useful at the time.

I’d suggest that you don’t try and “balance” this. Agility certainly has slightly more uses than Might, but you can’t use Agility to lift a portcullis or smash down a wall. It’s definitely not OP, so don’t worry about that. Not all attributes are equally powerful, because no two attributes have the same uses. Agility and Might have a lot of Banes because they’re key attacking attributes. They don’t have any Boons, so they can’t access the most powerful effects in the game, like Shapeshift or Summon Creature. Remember also that this isn’t a videogame, the GM is running the world so if the party are genuinely abusing a particular attribute then the GM can start throwing them challenges that can’t be solved with that attribute; or just let them abuse it, as long as everyone is having fun it doesn’t matter if it’s “balanced”.

It’s certainly legitimate, but please, please don’t do this. Open Legend is supposed to give players a wide variety of options. Players will probably end up self-limiting, in that not every Bane or Boon makes sense for every character. For example, I have a PC who is an illusionist with the Influence attribute; she can easily use Phantasm or Fear, but Charmed doesn’t really make sense for how her abilities are described so she never uses it.

If it comes down to it and your players make characters that do use every Bane and Boon they are allowed, what exactly is the problem you’re fearing? They will have a lot of options, which will lead to them doing a lot of different things. Sounds like fun to me! Combat will be varied and interesting, other encounters will depend on what you decide to throw at them. Please come back here if you’re struggling with planning these encounters, the community are always happy to help budding GMs.


alright, but by limiting the player actions i dont mean not telling them that they cant use certain abillities, but that they cant use more than 8 diffrent boons, isnt that fair? maybe i am too ‘videogame oriented’ when it comes to these things, but when it comes to immersion i think its wrong to let players go ‘oh it says i could do that, i got 7 entropy’.
but again, as you could guess im only preping my session with these questions, so i do pay much notice to the ‘go easy on it’ tips

This was what @SamWilby was saying, and what the Core Rules say as well. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it makes sense for your character. Open Legend is about self-limiting. You create a character, and then pick the things that help and fit to make that character a reality.

That’s why even though the Illusionist has access to the Charm bane, they don’t choose to do it, b/c it doesn’t make sense for the character.

That’s not to say that some characters will make perfect sense to have access to everything.

The biggest thing is this, don’t take away from players. They can be creative, and surprise you with the things they do. Open Legend isn’t balanced around the fact that you can only do X of this per day for Boons or Banes. It’s balanced in the requiring them to have rolls, which can fail.

Just b/c you have a boon isn’t a guarantee you will succeed at invoking it. And you can generally only do a single boon or bane invocation a round anyways (some feats will allow a variance to this of course).

And also, as is common advice, not just for Open Legend, but for all TTRPG, actually play in the system some as is before looking at modifying/homebrewing the system some so you get a feel for how it works to better understand the balance that is already there.

The game is really well balanced as it is, but it is something you’ll have to see through playing it.


It is expected that the players limit themselves, by sticking to their character concept and it’s certainly alright if a GM points out if certain action doesn’t fit well with their character, or even better asks the player to explain how it would work within the confinements of their concept. That way you avoid icemages throwing around fireballs and other shenanigans that seem out of place.

Limiting players with a numerical number of boons or banes is generally a bad idea though, as it goes against the spirit of the game of empower players and narrative.


I don’t think I can say it better than that. I’m having a problem with one player who has always built powerful mechanics into a character and then designed their story to explain why they could do all these things. He likes playing powerful characters so I didn’t want to limit him too much, but sometimes you do need to step in and say ‘You can’t use presence to heal yourself, especially when you’re character is an illusionist!’ :rofl: Or, if all your players are the type to enjoy creating broken characters, design more difficult encounters. Unfortunately, sometimes a GM has to give up on their dream of a story in the name of what the players want and if they aren’t interested in story driven characters, then a story driven campaign may just not interest them.


Players are allowed to do powerful things if that’s what they enjoy doing, so don’t stress about saying “no” unless they’re actually spoiling someone else’s fun. It’s definitely important to have a discussion about expectations though, session zero is vital any time you’re running with a new group or in a new style.

1 Like

The moment you realize it’s a ton more fun to invent the story around the characters and actions of your players than to make a pre-set narrative, the more fun you will have.


It depends on the GM and the players. Some players will love a pre-written narrative, and some GMs will have a miserable time trying to improv a story. The key is reacting to what the players want from the game as well as what they’re doing. There is no “one size fits all” approach to GMing.

I have 2 games running side-by-side at the moment, a Star Wars game and a Supers game, and they couldn’t be more opposite. Both are amazing.

  • The Supers players often end up floundering when they don’t know what to do, so their superior has stepped in and is commanding them more directly. Tactical decisions are still up to them, and they’re having a blast being told “raid this warehouse” and trying to work out how to do it with minimal harm or casualties. They don’t fully trust their boss, and they’re probably right not to, but they’re only just realising that the team of superhero watchdogs who they spied on their boss for aren’t who they say they are either…
  • In the Star Wars game I introduced the players with a bounty on an exiled Jedi, during which the Empire turned on them. Rather than team up with the Jedi or try and escape offworld to join the rebellion - like I expected - they killed the Jedi and then bartered with the Empire into hiring them. They now own an orbital dockyard and are doing their best to undercut the Tarkin Doctrine by selling stealth Corvettes with ship-destroying energy weapons to a rival Moff.

Two completely different methods for two different groups. Improv is fantastic if done well, but not every campaign will benefit from it.


Like Sam Wilby, I have a high influence character. But FEAR isn’t her thing. Her phantasm is dancing pink elephants rather than something scary (so people think they are drunk) and she likes CHARM a lot unlike Sam’s char who doesn’t use it.

As the others are trying to say here, let the character’s actions make sense. Ask your players to explain to you why the character is doing what it’s doing and how it’s doing it. They can come up with some pretty creative and hilarious explanations.

1 Like