On cutie marks

The current cutie mark system allows for only a specific kind of cutie mark to exist. That is to say, giving a bonus to a skill is too specific in some cases and too vague in others. As an example, here are two of my characters:

Fireflare: Special talent is precision. Not precise movements or precise knowledge. Precision.
Cheesecake: Special talent is teleportation. Period.

I know I introduced the "minus one attribute point, plus two training, no cutie bonus" rule for attribute-based ponies (though that never got confirmed), but what do I do with Cheesecake? Do I give her a bonus to Arcana? That's unfair, seeing as she's only studied teleportation and not, say, general magic effects.

Hmm, would it be acceptable to have cutie marks just give an extra utility talent instead of the skill bonus.

For that matter I've wondered at why it was designed such that the cutie mark bonus stacks with skill training instead of it being effectively just a better skill training (though at that point swapping it out for a utility talent would result in everyone doing so). Still, I'd like to hear what went into that decision.

Ramsus wrote:Hmm, would it be acceptable to have cutie marks just give an extra utility talent instead of the skill bonus.

For that matter I've wondered at why it was designed such that the cutie mark bonus stacks with skill training instead of it being effectively just a better skill training (though at that point swapping it out for a utility talent would result in everyone doing so). Still, I'd like to hear what went into that decision.

1) Sure, I'd be fine with a cutie mark giving an extra utility talent. Anyone else have an opinion about this? It'd be a major shift in character building

2) That decision I'm actually pretty proud of. The option to use your cutie mark on an untrained skill as well as on a trained one lets you both make specialist builds (like my Tempest Flash build I'm working on, who's designed to be the best flier you can make with the current system) as well as a more general build. Both are totally fair and legitimate, I just like giving the extra option... And not adding a limitation that some people might miss when reading.

I'd have to say I agree with Dan on this one; the whole point of the system is it's ease of use, not get get bogged down on whether something is too vague or specific. It's up to the player and the DM to see how detailed and specific the character's are. I honestly think things like the attribute based ponies are quite a bit slanted towards unnecessary, though that's my opinion. As the system get's more refined, this option can be revisited, but as it stands now, I'd rather focus on refining what we have.

How about give it some DM leeway? The principle behind DnD Next is that there will be a base ruleset and modular expansions to mix and match. Something similar could be done there, even if it comes out to be a separate document of "DM-Optional Rules" - rules that the DM must explicitly approve as part of the campaign. I had thoughts about that as well and was roughly thinking something along the lines of the following:


Optional Rule - Cutie Mark Talent
During character building, instead of a Cutie Mark giving training to a specific skill, the players may choose to gain a related Utility Talent. Players should feel encourage to create their own talent (with the DM's guidance and approval) if no existing talent is suitable.


As an example of such, I've been toying around with an OC pony with a Mirror cutie mark with the talent being "copying" - think Trixie but actually performing the copied action, rather than mere humiliation. The DM and I would agree on what the talent would be; perhaps something like "You gain +5 to any Skill Check to mimic another pony's Skill Check." This would all run along the sliding scale of "Roleplay vs Mechanics" in designing the individual campaign, of course.