Questions about Traits in 2nd edition (2nd level and 3rd level)

There is somewhat usual text and example questions:

257 page “A level 2 trait grants a +1D bonus to two rolls related…” vs “If Lieam’s Determined trait were Level 2, I could add the bonus to as many tests as I like…”

257 page “A level 3 trait grants +1s to any and all tests related to the wise.”
260 page “Fighting for her life Gwendolyn uses her level 3 Determined trait to reroll a failed test…”

Thank you,

yeah, those are some of the unfortunate oversights I mentioned in the kneejerk review.

I’d say go with the rules on pg 257, and make the following correction for lvl3: wise ought to be Trait.

Level 1 Trait: +1D bonus to 1 tests related to the Trait

Level 2 Trait: +1D bonus to 2 tests related to the Trait

Level 3 Trait: +1s to any and all rolls related to the Trait

This marks a change from 1e rules to place the lvl 3 trait as a clearly superior resource–or at least that is the intent. I imagine there is still some opinion on the matter which would include a review of the requirement that 1s means you already are successful in the test, and then get an extra success–in other words, the Trait only adds to margin of success. If the dice come out snakes, such that you fail the test, the +1s won’t count for anything.

In addition, it might be far more easy to forget whether the lvl 2 trait has been used once or twice. I’d kinda stick with the notion of: once or every, but sometimes is no good. I think that’s a paraphrase from Andy Warhol I got when reading a book about happiness–not really about gaming, but it felt like it mattered. Which is to say, it might be cool to have the bonus just once per session or simply have the bonus for every related test, but it won’t feel quite as cool to have bookkeeping of whether the related bonus was already used once or twice in a session.

Now, as you get into reading the Wises chapter, this is where you have the chance to reroll failed tests based on rewards points and a related -wise coming together.

Continuing the fine tradition of the examples always being wrong. :wink: