Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Hey hey. Ho ho. We’ve got resistances to roll. It’s me, James, here to update you all about the state of effect resistances (ya know, the stuff that lets you not be dazed when someone tries to daze you)!

When last we updated our intrepid Patrons, we had noted in our first round of Patreon playtest feedback that resistance rolls had slowed down the game a bit, and people didn’t love that. Since then, we’ve tried a few different options for managing conditions throughout the game. I want to talk about what we tried and why and where the game currently stands. But first, let’s talk about the reason for having resistances in the game.

Why Have ‘Em?

Why have effect resistances at all? It’s a good question. Not all games bother with them. If a wizard casts a spell to daze you, well they used a spell slot to do it, so now you’re dazed. Sorry not sorry.

While that can be fun in some genres of games where spell slots are precious and therefore you have to decide if it’s worth blowing one to do a cool thing at the expense of not being able to do OTHER cool things, the MCDM RPG ain’t that kind of game. We got heroic resources and monster abilities for days.

In fact, because our game is heroic and tactical, the heroes and the enemies they face do more than just deal damage. In order to fit the fantasy, we have a decent number of conditions and unique effects flying around during any given battle. That’s fun (provided it’s simple to track)! What’s not fun is feeling like you don’t have a chance to stand against being dazed or set on fire or knocked prone. While people seem to love automatic damage, they’re less cool with automatic weakened (or prone or bleeding). I totally understand why. Heroes and many of the epic monsters they battle should stand a chance of resisting being knocked down or frightened or being dealt a bloody wound.

We knew we had to have resistances in this game, and once the power roll came along, we set about trying to find some good solutions that would work with this new core mechanic.

Power Roll Alone Not Good Enough

The first thing I hoped would work (but knew would likely fail) was that the power roll itself could be enough of a form of resistance. If the attacker rolls low, then they just deal a little bit of damage and no harmful effect to their target. Let’s use the conduit’s Terrifying Smite as an example.

Costs 1 Wrath: Terrifying Smite

In a burst of holy light, your appearance morphs into your foe’s greatest fear.

Keywords: Attack, Magic, Ranged Type: Action

Distance: Ranged 5 Target: 1 creature

Power Roll + Intuition:

7 or lower: 6 holy damage

8-10:8 holy damage; frightened 1

11+: 13 holy damage; frightened 5

The numbers after the frightened condition indicate the condition’s value. At the end of a frightened creature’s turn, they roll 1d6 and reduce the condition’s value by a number equal to the result. When the value drops to 0, you remove the condition. Giving conditions values meant that they could increase in strength when you rolled super high with your attack.

By the way, here’s what frightened means in the current iteration of the game. If you are frightened, attacks you make against the source of your fear with a −1. If that source is a creature, they make attacks against you with an +1. You can’t willingly move closer to the source of your fear if you know where they are. If you gain the frightened condition from a creature while already frightened by a different creature, the new condition replaces the old one.

When we tried this version of the power roll determining everything about the effect, players and Directors didn’t love that their own stats did nothing to help them prevent conditions. They also didn’t love that a value-5 condition could be removed by a lucky d6 roll, so we thought we should tweak the condition numbers a bit. Trying to serve both these issues got me into a little trouble in the next round.

Static Defenses

My next approach was to try and give each creature a list of five defenses (one for each characteristic of Might, Agility, Reason, Intuition, and Presence) that would reduce incoming conditions and effects. Whenever a creature imposes a condition upon another, the ability that imposes the condition notes which characteristic is subtracted from the condition’s value. If a tactician with an Intuition of 1 suffered an effect that dealt them frightened 3 vs Intuition, then they gained a frightened 2 condition.

Not all these effect resistances could just be the low scores that modified dice rolls (which needed to stay low to not influence the power roll odds too greatly). They needed to be higher because I had adjusted the math of condition values based on feedback from the previous version. I wanted heroic abilities (the kind that cost resources) that against a 0 defense would stick around for 1 round (or value 1) if the attack got the 7 or less result and were likely but not guaranteed to stick around for 2 rounds (or value 5) if the attack got the 8 to 10 result and would definitely stick around for at least 2 rounds (or value 8) if the attack got the 11 or higher result. However, I also wanted targeting a strong defense to nullify the effect if the attack rolled 10 or less and greatly reduce the effect of an 11 or less attack result, so that meant characteristic defenses needed to be separate from scores.

Each defense was calculated by adding a number (determined by a creature’s class or role) to one or more of their characteristics. A tactician added 3 to their Might and Reason scores to get their Might and Reason defenses. So if they start with a Might score of 2, their Might defense is 5. They also added 1 to their Presence score, and nothing to their Agility and Intuition scores.

Here’s what Terrifying Smite looks like with that version:

Costs 1 Wrath: Terrifying Smite

In a burst of holy light, your appearance morphs into your foe’s greatest fear.

Keywords: Attack, Magic, Ranged Type: Action

Distance: Ranged 5 Target: 1 creature

Power Roll + Intuition:

7 or lower: 6 holy damage; frightened 1 vs Intuition

8-10:8 holy damage; frightened 5 vs Intuition

11+: 13 holy damage; frightened 8 vs Intuition

For unique effects, we could also deploy static defenses by turning them into something akin to AC in D&D. Depending on the ability and result of a roll, a target could suffer a unique effect or not based on their defense. Here’s an example from the harpy stat block:

Alluring Song

Keywords: Area, Magic Type: Action

Distance: 10 Burst Target: All enemies

Roll 2d6 + Presence:

7 or lower: if target’s Presence defense is 0 or lower, suffer effect

8-10: if target’s Presence defense is 1 or lower, suffer effect

11+: if target’s Presence defense is 5 or lower, suffer effect

Effect: The target moves their full speed toward the harpy, ignoring any danger. Their speed then becomes 0 until the start of the harpy’s next turn.

Defenses being static certainly kept the resolution fast and made players feel like their hero had a say in preventing particular conditions, but it led to some other problems. First, condition values had gotten so high in order to make the d6 save at end of turn math work that the game suddenly became about managing and helping your friends manage conditions, which isn’t really what we want the game to be about. Giving up every other turn to help a friend remove a condition that targeted one of their weak defenses instead of kicking major monster booty isn’t heroic. It also seriously bogs down play! On top of all that, rolling a d6 at the end of your turn still wasn’t something people thought was fun, so the whole system for conditions needed a bit of a rethink.

Return of the Resistance Roll

What we’re doing now is not actually all that novel, but after just a bit of testing, it seems to be working. We’ll see if it stands up to more.

For abilities that deal dramatic effects (such as the dazed condition or the harpy’s Alluring Song), we’ve brought back the resistance roll. Instead of having an attacker roll an attack AND a target roll for resistance, we now just have the target make a resistance roll. This is similar to the way many spells work in D&D and other games. You don’t make an attack roll for charm person or entangle. Instead, the target gets a chance to resist the effect with a roll.

The resistance roll is a power roll that the target rolls to determine how well they resist certain abilities. The good news is that the creature using the ability also has their characteristic also factor into the roll in the form of a penalty that is imposed upon the target’s roll. The conduit’s Terrifying Smite for instance requires the target to make an Intuition power roll to resist with a penalty to the roll equal to the conduit’s Intuition score. It’s Intuition vs Intuition!

A high resistance roll means the ability has the minimal effect, and a low resistance roll means the ability hits the target at full strength. Let’s take a look at Terrifying Smite in this version:

Costs 1 Wrath: Terrifying Smite

In a burst of holy light, your appearance morphs into your foe’s greatest fear.

Keywords: Magic, Ranged, Resistance Type: Action

Distance: Ranged 5 Target: 1 creature or object

TARGET MAKES Resistance Roll + Intuition (− Your Intuition):

7 or lower: 13 holy damage; frightened (Intuition resistance ends)

8-10:8 holy damage; frightened (EoT)

11+:  6 holy damage

You might be wondering what “(EoT)” and “(Intuition resistance ends)” mean. Well the first one is easy. EoT means “end of turn,” and that means the condition just ends at the end of the target’s next turn. In the case of “Intuition resistance ends,” you need to make an Intuition resistance roll at the end of your turn to end the effect. Whenever you make an end of turn resistance roll, here are the outcomes:

Power Roll + [Characteristic specified by ability]:

7 or lower: the effect persists

8-10: the effect ends at the end of your next turn

11+: the effect immediately ends

It’s worth noting that many abilities are still straight up attack rolls, many of which still apply minor conditions or effects, like forced movement. It’s just that those more devastating conditions typically require a resistance roll. We make the decision on an ability-by-ability basis.

That’s where things are right now. We’re really putting the power roll to plenty of use so far. There are other methods we could try here if this doesn’t work out. For instance, there are ways to make characteristic defenses and conditions work by heavily adjusting the math, but right now we like the dramatic tension of a target’s resistance roll determining their fate.

More to come!

—James

Files

Comments

Roman Penna

Ooooh I like that you make a Power roll to resist certain effects, and that means adding bonus to those resistance rolls also means something. I like that!

Dalen W. Brauner

Curious to see where the "line in the sand" will be for what deserves a Resistance roll vs an Offensive one! This design problem has always seemed to me one of the trickiest in the genre... best of luck!!

Joe Auerbach

I like this, but I think it ALSO gives us the first thing for a Director's Screen! Wewt!

Tony French

In my mind the line is one that separates abilities that restrict choice vs ones that don't. Being set on fire or pushed around don't drastically restrict your choices, but being Paralyzed or Frightened do.

laughing giraffe

Ok, I've come to terms with the idea of the resist roll. I saw Matt post his Conduit sheet on Twitter and saw that his wrath abilitiess made the enemy make a resist roll. At the time I felt resistance (lol) to the idea. But seeing the process to come to what is in the game now I see it's probably the best solution. But I feel that target Stat minus your Stat is kinda clunky. What if everyone got a +1 to one Stat for "resist rolls" at level 1 and maybe more at higher levels dependingon how scaling works. I feel like this would make the math way easier than having to use the current method. Banes ( or whatever we're calling them now) could be still applied to make the result lower as a reaction.

Nick Enquist

So I’m curious, would rolling snake eyes mean that the attacker crits? Or can you not crit when using a “power” that invokes a reaction roll?

JBR

Love the way this is, but how does this work for casters using other abilities, if a Presence Caster uses a spell targeting Intuition, will it be Intuition minus Caster's Intuition, or will the Presence come in to play? Or is this a spell by spell result?

Steven V. Neiman

I'm going to guess that it will mainly be a question of "is this likely to seriously reduce a player's options?", with a side order of "Is there fun counter-play to keep this from being ruinous?". It seems like the main idea here is to give the player at least the illusion of agency, and that's less necessary if the nastiness is something they can tank with build choices or mitigate with clever play.

AndruC

If it doesn't work during testing, we can trust they'll revisit it with another solution!

Dlove

Adding my 2 cents...on this topic, I think you are moving in the wrong direction. I actually like the Power Roll with the various effects (higher the roll the more damage and effect). The Resistance Roll by the target seems against the nature of the game to me.

AndruC

The characteristic the attacker adds and the defender resists with do not have to be the same. The attacking characteristic depends on tae ability!

AndruC

Liking it doesn't solve the problems it introduced.

Dlove

The point is, to me, those aren't problems. Rolling a 6 on an effect with a 5 to start is not a bad thing. I think the 'luck' of it is fine. Also, I don't see an issue with having the effect be based on the caster and not related to the target's 'defenses'. Making the effect based on the target's roll takes the agency away from the player/attacker and makes them passive as they watch the target roll. That seems against the nature of the game which is based on no attack roll so you never just sit out a round. Rather than the player being excited to roll high, now it is the target rolling and stealing your thunder.

Kuroshi

At first blush, I don't like the Resistance Roll. I really liked that everything was an attack, you were in charge of how powerful what you were doing was. It added a consistency of play to abilities that this model throws out. I'm also concerned about the implication this has on crits. If you can't crit with a Resistance Roll ability, are they going to be slightly more powerful than Power Roll abilities to account for that?

FoxTrick

I wonder how many rolls this would make a director do for a Sleep spell as an example.?

Valentino Konjik

These are all great ideas! However none are intuitive. New players will be confused in my opinion. Why not go all-in with tables? Make a condition counter table on the character sheet with tokens to track how many rounds are left. The higher the power roll more rounds you will suffer or the resistance roll is more difficult. Triggered reactions can reduce number of rounds. I know you don't want any design tips, but all these versions where I have to calculate and roll and compare stats... I just couldn't resist :p

AndruC

"Also, I don't see an issue with having the effect be based on the caster and not related to the target's 'defenses'. " - Players did not like being on the receiving end of this dynamic and have their characterishics not come into play on the defense. It's not the monsters complaining!

AndruC

One per target? What does sleeping have to do with it? "The Sleep spell" is from a different game, so don't think too hard about it.

Guichenocrate

I guess we'll have to see how the playtest pan out. My first reaction is to note that adding and subtracting to a roll usually end up fiddly and seems fairly inelegant. It feels like we take away something from the person who rolls .

Eran Arbel

It's always good to know what players respond to. Honestly, I never liked the "d6 at EoT". It's arbitrary, it's too big. I also think that a condition should always effect an entity at least for one round so I'm completely fine with anything just slapping on a condition (in a reasonable measure). And for stacked conditions, I'm thinking: "Reduce by 1", "Reduce by 2", "Reduce by 3", with no reduction for rolling a natural 2 and completely ending it for a natural 12.

Cirrahn

Feels like a few too many steps down a contrived path. I'm sure it will shake out in testing, though. Binary conditions and flat save-ends (always 10+) kept 4e's (among others) creaking condition system manageable, I wonder if a player's power roll could be a lookup for the flat value needed. Max roll = it just happens, mid roll = they save on a 5+ on a d6, min roll = they save on a 3+ on a d6? If you AoE a group of monsters, the director picks up that many d6s and rolls the whole lot, knowing that they're looking for the same number across the board.

Valentino Konjik

As colville said in on of it's last youtubevideos. Players like to know what kind of dice they need to take in their hand: 2d6 not 1d6.... And every additional roll dilutes the action.

James Milner

Am I right in understanding that the resistance roll made by the player is modified by the difference between the 'caster' and the 'target' intuition. So the player needs to know the monsters intuition as they roll the check?

Beltux

hmmm on one hand I like some of this since on the defense side it puts the impetus on the players hands. but I'm weary of if this migth bog the game down. Now instead of the director just rolling the dice needed and moving on, they have to prompt the affected player/players , each with their own scores having an impact on the situation, reversed if its the players doing the thing. And that interaction of having to rely on another party to tell you if you do the thing or not was something that Matt claimed he wanted to avoid, and I happen to agree would be a good thing. Testing will bear out of course, but for now I'm skeptical.

Dlove

To AndruC...Your comment above is not true. Players did not complain...some players complained. I am a player (I like Colville's stuff and play tested the original game) and I am not complaining. He is asking for feedback which I am giving. He and his team will take that feedback along with all other feedback and decide how to move forward. You seem to be under the notion that no one should offer feedback that contradicts what you think. I am offering that I do not see the issue at question as a bad one. It will be one of many opinions which will go into the pot as the team works on the game. I gave my thoughts and now I am done with this thread. Don't have time to argue with someone who can't allow anyone to have a different opinion than them.

Dlove

To MShin...I can and did tell you that it has no agency. You may not agree but don't tell me what I can and can't say.

Dave Molnar

Fascinating to see how this is all panning out in testing! I love being able to see the process work out “live” thanks for the update James! Keen to see how it goes!

Cody Rapai

This is wierd to me. Not only does it have the "what is your ac?" problem, you now somehow get rewarded monster information just by being a target. Wierd.

Anthony Renaud

In one of Matt's recent videos (I think talking about the Power Roll) he emphasized that in general play testers liked that when its your turn you pick up the 2d6 - you don't know what you are going to do but you know you pick up the 2d6 to do it. They just didn't like the everybody does 2d6 + something damage, even the lowly kobold - hence the power roll table. This breaks that paradigm of "it's your turn, pick up the 2d6 to roll. " It feels like you're breaking something that seemed really positively received in past play testing.

Anthony Renaud

Also a off topic nitpick on power names, something I noticed in the playlets. Sometimes your name choices are unintuitive to the action it describes. Smite: vt. to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand

Murilo Trigo

The tiered results of the Power Roll are very flexible

Kyman201

'Smite' can actually be used to mean 'to afflict' so a divine power that inflicts divinely-inspired horror IS actually a correct use of the word :D

Anthony Renaud

Sure, in the sense of 'smitten', I guess.

Apex

I think having a power roll with a table for "Saving Throws" is a great solution! Well done!

hadnerfaln

I If the hero is the user: The monster (Director) rolls 2d6, adds their Intuition, and reports to the player. They subtract their own Intuition from the reported number and looks up the result. So, A: "Roll Intuition resistance." B: (rolls 2d6) "8 plus 3, so 11. Best result!" A: "Not so fast, it's minus 2 from MY Intuition, so the result is 9." (looks up 9 in table) "You take 8 holy damage and are frightened until EoT."

hadnerfaln

Alternatively, if the user prefers, they can say "roll Intuition resistance minus 2" and let all the calculation be handled by the target and then look up the reported number. But the key point is that the target rolls the dice, not the user, so you don't need to know their stat in advance.

Nelson Chandler

The 1d6 at the end of each turn to remove status effect levels seems a bit too random swingy. Why not just make it default reduce by 1 at EoT? If you need more than that, that’s what consumables and friends with support powers are for.

Wesley Kriz

Pathfinder 2e has a similar system and it works well.

Sean Boyce

Be interesting to see how inverting the result table interacts with Matt's rule about the table always being the same. Pointedly, I guess the table is "the same" in terms of the ranges, but the outputs are now inverted. You're looking for a low roll from your target as opposed to a good roll from yourself. Feels kinda lame compared to the satisfaction of rolling big. I would say, for my own experience, as a Director, I don't care about my monsters resisting stuff. As a dnd DM, I frequently treat scrub monsters as having 50/50 save chances, regardless of the heroes' save DCs. I only care about the heroes save DCs against opponents of significance. In point of fact, in big battles, I sometimes just use 40k style 4up saves, rolling a big blob of them and checking which succeed and which fail. Statistically, it's not that far off of what the game's doing anyway. If monsters have a negative or disadv in that stat, I roll them as 5ups or, if both, I roll them as 6ups. The point of that is to say, I don't care or want to roll Resistance for monsters that are insignificant to the adventure. I would rather just let the heroes always roll their dice and feel tactical and cool when they score big numbers. Equally, I only want them to roll Resistance when they care about it, and when they do, I don't want to have to roll attack dice. Third and finally, I would love to have the option with a Villain to Resist anything the heroes can do, but maybe not infinitely. In that way, a Villain's Resistances could be sort of like Legendary Resistances in 5e but less dumb. For example, a harpy never would roll Resistance. But the Harpy Queen might have a trait or power that lets her roll Resistance for other Harpies or herself using Presence, since it's her charismatic aura that compels her brood under her thumb. Or dew claw or whatever. Her Resistance roll then is just a contested roll against the power roll where she reduces the effect by her Tier score. Roll a tier 1, reduce effect by 1 tier. Roll a tier 4, she cancels your terrifying smite or whatever. Sucks, but she's used a Resistance roll now, so you're one step closer to landing the Big One. Or maybe she can only roll each Resistance once, so you have a chance to tactically target her and her retinue with specific powers that use those stats she has already utilized or the stats she's bad at Resisting or whatever. Point is, less rolling. Resistance only for heroes and villains, not for monsters. Leave the big cool hits to stay big cool hits that have effects. Let the players play and plan around how to burn off resistances on important enemies. Gives a better and more flexible design space.

Valentino Konjik

No it's annoying micromanagement : Imagije a fight where you track three different conditions with three different numbers.

Noah Topper

Is there a concern that with statuses going away at the end of the monster's next turn, the Director is tactically incentivized to choose for that monster to go next in the turn order? Could be very unsatisfying for the player.

Ryan Rupert

If an effect ends at the end of a monsters next turn, it was meant to only impact them one time. While the time frame may be shorter irl, they still take a penalty on one turn regardless of how many turns later they go. Also, if I'm a director and my monster has a debuff, I could be more inclined to bump them back in the order since they may not be as useful as other monsters while the effect is on them. All depends on what makes the most sense in the moment

Noah Topper

Okay yeah I was imagining a different type of debuff for some reason, but I see that in most cases you're right. I was thinking about a debuff that might make the monster more vulnerable to enemy attacks in some way, in which case if heroes never get a chance to exploit it, that might be lame. But I'm not how many debuffs like that there will be, if any.