WOIN O.L.D. v1.2 Playtest Version B

[dialNforNinja]

p22: "This rulebook presents seven basic fantasy races (Grand Elves, Humans, Ogres, Sylvan Elves, Smallfolk, Mountain Dwarves, and Orcs) and three optional rac- es (Clockfolk, Goblins, and Minotaurs), and more"

Since Clockfolk are apparently out, this needs a little edit too. I am curious why they're being dropped, as constructs/androids are almost always my first pick when they're available unless they have horrible (or at least imbalanced with other character types) disadvantages in play.

 

[Irishrelief]

PG 15

1. Note your starting attributes (each attribute starts at 3, except for MAGIC and REPUTATION...

This is inconsistent with the new errata that says REP starts at 3 now.

PG 22 Races & Attributes paragraph 2: Also mentions that REP starts at 0 which is inconsistent with new errata.

Pg 30/31 Exploits.

Choose one of the listed exploits or select a universal exploit.

Once you have exhausted all of the listed exploits through repetition of a career, you may select a universal exploit instead...

Seems inconsistent even though they are right next to each other (I know new players may be confused).

PG 32 Farmhand: Secret of plants.
It's more a gripe about finding things than it being an incorrect item. Having never run or played in an OLD campaign I am not as familiar with the system specific wordings. "You know the secret of plants." Is really hard to figure out initially, a quick search finds it 5 times in that exact phrase, none which actually explains it. Luckily the mistletoe item and a summoning blurb mention it and helped me look at the Secrets section which lists out the common secrets. Could the be a way to maybe amend any of the you gain secret of X exploits with a word like magic? Just as a way of pushing the search faster. A complaint from my playgroup using NEW/2000AD is that things don't index/reference well for new players and are often hard to locate and clarify. Perhaps just capitalizing Secret would be that push, implying it's a proper name and has a location in the appendix and a section head in the magic chapter. This is actually done in the Wizard's Apprentice on PG33 "Choose one magical secret". That phrase alone makes it immediately apparent where a reader needs to look.

PG 43: Oath of Healing.

You swear never use poison, or to do harm outside of combat.

Just missing a simple to.

PG 43/44: Herb.
Throughout the Herbalist career there is inconsistent mentioning of a herb vs an herb. Both are correct, Brittish vs American English; however, consistency is king.


PG 44: Icy Skin + Cold Immunity.
More of a rules question than anything, If you took Chilling Touch>Icy Skin>Cold Immunity would you have 3d6 fire vulnerability? As opposed to Cold Immunity>Chilling Touch>Icy Skin which would give you only 1d6 fire vulnerability as written. "if you didn't already have it" is the key phrase in question. Would your vulnerability increase to 2d6 "if you didn't already have 2d6 vulnerability (fire)"?

PG 44: Illusory Attack: What is the range of the ranged attack option? I only ask because I know someone will want to know how far this will work, or how far a range increment will be for penalties. Otherwise, with no range listed it could be assumed that sight is needed for an illusion to attack someone (also brings blind into play) but this isn't stated.

PG 45: Inquisitor

Inquisitor magic is subtle, with few sensory cues, but intimidating:

Colon used in place of a period.

PG 47: Criminal Careers.
More a style gripe than anything else. I do not have a better place to fit this currently. It does not belong sandwiched between Loremaster and Mage. I did a double take on this blurb about criminal careers because I had to wonder if Mage or Loremaster were criminal. If I were making a criminal and never looked at this very specific page I would never know that I had the chance to be a prisoner at all. By contrast Ninja rules are with the ninja, Animal Companion rules are with the druid etc.

PG 49: Corpse Visage.
Does this override the 3 minimum of stats? I assume yes as written and that's how I would rule as a DM. Just wanted clarification.

PG 50: Fierce Reputation.

Your reputation is now so fierce that you can inflict tha Afraid condition on all targets within 30' with a REP vs. MENTAL DEFENSE attack.

Spelling error: tha

I will do another 50 pages tomorrowish. If these are not the sort of critique sought please let me know and I won't continue to look over draft 06 in this manner.

 

[flareblade]

First and foremost, I want to take a moment to compliment you for the system, and the effort you have gone into improvements over time.

However, while going through the book, I found myself confused regarding the ability to Shake Off spells.

On Page 175, under "Spell Statistics," the book states, "Duration and conditions. Conditions can be shaken off as normal with an opposed attribute check. The duration of a condition puts an upper time limit on the condition. The condition ends when the duration expires, or when it is shaken off, whichever comes first." This seems to be referring to old language for rolling Attributes to Shake Off conditions.

This also directly contradicts Page 152, under "Persistent Conditions," where the book states, "A condition inflicted by a spell is a persistent condition that lasts throughout the duration of the spell that inflicted it."
The following are examples that further cause confusion as they imply an innate ability to Shake Off spell effects.

Page 41: From the Enchanter career: "Extended Enchantments. Your charm or enchantment spells cannot be shaken off until the spell duration expires."

Page 191: "Subtle Enchantment. Cost 3 MP. The creature is unaware that it has been enchanted, and cannot shake off the charm, which lasts for a set duration (which must be purchased)."

Page 181: "Subtle Compulsion. Cost 3 MP. The creature is unaware that it has been controlled, and cannot shake off the effect, which lasts for a set duration (which must be purchased)."

Thanks again for the work put into this system, and have a great day.

 

[Len]

This has confused me too. We’ve been playing it that spell-induced conditions can be shaken off.

 

[Irishrelief]

On Page 175, under "Spell Statistics," the book states, "Duration and conditions. Conditions can be shaken off as normal with an opposed attribute check. The duration of a condition puts an upper time limit on the condition. The condition ends when the duration expires, or when it is shaken off, whichever comes first." This seems to be referring to old language for rolling Attributes to Shake Off conditions.

This also directly contradicts Page 152, under "Persistent Conditions," where the book states, "A condition inflicted by a spell is a persistent condition that lasts throughout the duration of the spell that inflicted it unless it is shaken off"
The following are examples that further cause confusion as they imply an innate ability to Shake Off spell effects.

Page 41: From the Enchanter career: "Extended Enchantments. Your charm or enchantment spells cannot be shaken off until the spell duration expires." Self explanatory that the shake off ability cannot be used on conditions caused by someone who spent a career exploit.

Page 191: "Subtle Enchantment. Cost 3 MP. The creature is unaware that it has been enchanted, and cannot shake off the charm, which lasts for a set duration (which must be purchased)."

Page 181: "Subtle Compulsion. Cost 3 MP. The creature is unaware that it has been controlled, and cannot shake off the effect, which lasts for a set duration (which must be purchased)."

Thanks again for the work put into this system, and have a great day.

My emphasis added. There is a natural ability to shake off conditions. It costs 1 action to make an attempt. As I read it, if a spell causes a condition it will last for the noted duration in the spell (for example 3 rounds) or until shaken off whichever comes first. Like all good rules there are exceptions, like the Extended Enchantments career exploit which doesn't allow those conditions to end until the duration is up, or the spells which also do not allow for their condition to be shaken (they have a duration and when it is up the effect/condition ends).

I fully expect Morris to pounce in and roflstomp my understanding of his system. This is just how I read and interpret the system.

 

[Len]

This also directly contradicts Page 152, under "Persistent Conditions," where the book states, "A condition inflicted by a spell is a persistent condition that lasts throughout the duration of the spell that inflicted it unless it is shaken off"

My emphasis added.

The phrase that you added does not exist in the version of the rules that I have, v1.2 draft06, which is the latest available afaik. (That's the file linked at the top of this thread.)

 

[Irishrelief]

The phrase that you added does not exist in the version of the rules that I have, v1.2 draft06, which is the latest available afaik. (That's the file linked at the top of this thread.)

Hence my emphasis. I added that bit because it is understood that you know how and when to shake off a condition. The phrase "shake it off" appears 3 times in the current draft, pg190

"Enchantment spells inflict or remove mental conditions. Each round, creatures affected by condition shake if off as normal for a condition. However, if you choose the Subtle Enchantment enhancement, creatures cannot try to shake it off each round because they do not realize they have been enchanted."

, pg196

"Inflict spells can also inflict certain conditions. Each round, creatures affected by condition shake it off as normal for a condition."

.
If you read the last paragraph of the Compel description on pg181 you will see that it defines that there is a chance to shake off that effect unless you use the enhancement that you have previously noted

Each round, creatures can try to shake a compulsion off.

The better question is does the Immobilize variant of a Movement spell (pg197/198) allow for an attempt to shake it off. There is no mention in the school description like the three other noted schools, and pg152 would imply that the caster would get full value for the MP spent whereas pg175 would imply that the condition could be shaken off. In reality it is pg175 that needs the work. As you mentioned it contains old verbiage, but it is mentioned on pg152 as an optional rule.

As I read it, effects can be shaken off if allowed (Compel, Enchant, Inflict) otherwise they are persistent and fall under pg152. Which isn't the say that the other three schools are not persistent, but they have the exception added to them. I'll continue to debate it with you because I do see your point (my initial stance downplayed the Persistent portion of pg152).

 

[Len]

Hence my emphasis. I added that bit because it is understood that you know how and when to shake off a condition.

I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. The way you phrased it, a condition inflicted by a spell is both persistent and not persistent.

There's a clear contradiction between page 152 (spell conditions are persistent and cannot be shaken off) and page 175 (spell conditions can be shaken off as normal).

 

[Irishrelief]

I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. The way you phrased it, a condition inflicted by a spell is both persistent and not persistent.

There's a clear contradiction between page 152 (spell conditions are persistent and cannot be shaken off) and page 175 (spell conditions can be shaken off as normal).

175 is the issue. The reason it is the issue is because per 152 spell conditions are persistent, and persistent conditions cannot be shaken off, they can be magically healed or healed by resting. Now fast forward to spell schools that cause conditions; some of them, Compel, Enchant, and Inflict, all specifically say they can be shaken off. Unless the specific enhancement within the section is selected, or unless the caster has a specific exploit that would disallow a condition to be shaken off.

Example: I cast Compulsion on you. I'm being frugal with my points so I'll just inflict the first level of the condition on you. Assuming success you are now at the first level of charmed. On your turn you may attempt to shake it off once using an action. Backing up a bit, I am not being so frugal with my points, and I now enhance the compulsion spell with subtle compulsion. On your turn you are charmed and unaware of being charmed, you cannot attempt to shake it off and are subject to the duration of the spell. This is because the Compulsion section states that an attempt to shake it off can be made. So on your turn I would allow you the chance to shake it off because of pages 175 and 181.

Example 2: I want to cast a Move-Anchor spell on you (pg198). We'll call it hold person. I want it to last for 5 minutes, at a range of 10', with you as the target. That's 2mp+1mp+0mp for the improved spell, and another 8mp for the effect. Assuming I can spend 11mp, and assuming it is a success you are now restrained for 5 minutes. The move school description does not say that you get a chance to shake it off. So as written I would not allow it because of pg152.

I'm still waiting for Morrus to jump in and tell me I'm wrong and completely butchering his game, but until then this is how I would interpret and rule on this as a DM. It is also how I would present my case to my DM for their clarification. I'll gladly keep discussing any rule you want, I think it brings us to a better understanding in general which is great for the game play and our play groups. Plus it will also show what rules really are in need of a clarification/update.

 

[Morrus]

Guys, please take the debate to a new thread and stick to solely reporting errata in this thread. Otherwise it makes it really hard for me to compile it if I'm hunting and pecking through pages of discussion. Thanks!