Ask a Simple Question - Get a Simple Answer

So it's immediately and the monsters gain pips. Therefore they both still suck horribly.

I actually think it wouldn't be too broken for DP to cause it to happen on their turn, since it doesn't happen predictably. Really the only reason is that they can use any attack they want, and thus go and do some stupid [+] pip attack and make me cry because my special went off, which shouldn't happen.

I think it should either make them use their next attack to do it (thus making it unstackable) or not let them use their [+] moves (preventing it from being a monster buff that nobody likes you because you keep doing that)

Ramsus wrote:So it's immediately and the monsters gain pips. Therefore they both still suck horribly.

What you mean to say is that they're situational and not super-broken.

They're terrible in some situations and much better than average in others.

I strongly disagree, the only time it isn't a direct ramp to the monster doing something crazy is if they don't have a [+] attack that won't basically autokill their friend. And I strongly hope we aren't running around with monsters that have [+] attacks which rape people to death.

I don't see the situation where the enemy gets a free attack and gets to gain pips and gets to choose which attack it uses is ever on average useful to the players and not in fact a punishment for rolling your crit/being dumb enough to take Paranoia.

If you are going against a solo that has potent damaging attacks even among its [+] powers, then it can be devastating. This is designed as a situational power with a hefty drawback for players that like finding ways to make very-hard-to-use powers work. You don't need to take it if you don't like it.

It's not "situational" it's "hey, the GM might remember not to accidentally screw you over". Also, "situational" is not a functional way for a special move to operate. You can't choose not to bring it in, you can only choose if you have it or not.

There's also no reason to design either Dazzling Performance or Paranoia so "situationally".''

You could easily have one or both worded like Derpy's Lightning d12 crit where it chooses a random move and they don't gain pips. There's several different ways for them to both function that aren't "situationally" useful (and by situationally we mean a situation which never occurs).

I probably will change Dazzling Performance to be less situational (special moves shouldn't be situational) but do not let your rage control you Ramus. Just because you don't like one talent out of nearly 200 does not mean it doesn't have a place in the system.

I might buff it at some point, but I've seen it used well before.

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:If you are going against a solo that has potent damaging attacks even among its [+] powers, then it can be devastating. This is designed as a situational power with a hefty drawback for players that like finding ways to make very-hard-to-use powers work. You don't need to take it if you don't like it.

Yeah, it works really well against the 'glass cannon' types (high damage output / low health), but it certainly isn't a very reliable move. Part of the reason why it's not that great is that most monsters deal less damage than players and compensate with higher HP. A clever DM will look at their player's combat talents before making the monsters, and build them so that all the character's abilities to have time to shine, though that can take a fair amount of planning. Hopefully, the compendium I'm composing will have enough variety within it to please all players' play-styles.

A special which is basically only usable against a single, specific type of encounter is laughable at best since none of the other specials have that limitation.

Another way to make it not just feel like you're being jipped is to make it do a random attack they have, not costing/adding pips. That way it can give the enemy a bonus, but it can also affect them strongly, but the GM doesn't get the option to just say "thanks for the pips!" And then eat your face.

Edit: And of course Ramsus stole my idea before I posted it. I shouldn't post while talking to him on the phone...

thematthew wrote:A special which is basically only usable against a single, specific type of encounter is laughable at best since none of the other specials have that limitation.

Another way to make it not just feel like you're being jipped is to make it do a random attack they have, not costing/adding pips. That way it can give the enemy a bonus, but it can also affect them strongly, but the GM doesn't get the option to just say "thanks for the pips!" And then eat your face.

Actually, I think that change would be good for the Special Move. But, keep the others the way they are. I've seen a monster who's only attack was a [-7] pip move, and it just so happened to have enough pips to use that one when the player used that move. It was extremely effective Although, very situational. It's a move that works extremely well if you know a monster's stats. (Which is, most often, not the case.)

Ok, this has been bugging me for a while but I keep forgetting to ask it. I remember from an earlier conversation that if you were to apply something like Draw Blood, then Enfeebling Curse, the target wouldn't have both but would only take damage from the latter. Instead, the 1 Ongoing Damage would be nulled, replacing it with the 5 Ongoing Damage. With that in mind, something's been bugging me about Ongoing Damage/Vulnerability and Crippling Strike 12 (and other talents with multiple effects attached to a single Save Ends, like Enfeebling Curse). For reference:

Crippling Strike
8: Blind target enemy (save ends)
10: Blind and weaken target enemy (save ends both)
12: Blind target enemy and it suffers vulnerability 3 and 5 ongoing damage (save ends all)

[-2] Ignite - Standard Attack
Target takes ongoing 1d10 damage (save ends).

Say Crippling Strike 12 activates, and Monster X now has the ongoing effect. Next, Ignite activates and applies Ongoing Damage 7. Now, the Blind, Vulnerability 3, and Ongoing Damage 5 are all part of the same effect, hence the "Save ends all" bit. What happens to the Crippling Strike's effect now that there's a higher OD on it? Is the Vulnerability and Blindness also removed? If the Ongoing 7 is saved for before the rest, does the Ongoing 5 come back into play since it's still a part of the effect? This whole thing is rather confusing.

Edit: Also, kinda late but I'm personally in favor of the 7 point racial build, rather than the 8 point, though an 8 point would be cool to have more stuff to play with.

If the latter move adds a redundant effect to the first, you just apply the new effects independently (unless you wish to overwrite the pre-existing blind).

Meaning, if you activate the 10 and then the 12, the blindness of the 12 is redundant and so is effectively blank as part of that effect. The effect basically becomes "suffers vulnerability 3 and 5 ongoing damage (save ends all)." For that circumstance.

Similarly, the higher ongoing damage in your example would overwrite the lesser ongoing damage effect - since you probably wish to overwrite it. In that case, the previous ongoing damage becomes 'blank' in its last (save ends all) bundle and ongoing damage is now tied to the latter effect.

Phillip and I have got a bit of a dispute going. It started with Critfisher:

[+3] Critfisher – Standard Utility
Choose one;
A) Roll two dice of your choice from amongst d8s, d10s and d12s (you could choose to roll both dice from one of these types, or a mix from amongst these types).
B) Pay 2 pips. If you do, roll five dice of your choice from amongst d8s, d10s and d12s (you could choose to roll all five from one of these types, or a mix from amongst these types).

I believe that the PiP gain or loss comes before any effects. Therefore, you can activate Version B even if you're at zero PiPs, and will end up with a net result of +1 PiPs. Phillip argues the reverse, where you make any payments before you gain or lose PiPs, and therefore you'd get a +1 net gain of PiPs, but need at least two PiPs to start with before you can use Version B.

This argument kinda spilled over to other abilities that mention payment, including Wave of Zeal, and the Handbook is rather unclear on this point, so clarification would be appreciated.

Videocrazy wrote:Phillip and I have got a bit of a dispute going. It started with Critfisher:

[+3] Critfisher – Standard Utility
Choose one;
A) Roll two dice of your choice from amongst d8s, d10s and d12s (you could choose to roll both dice from one of these types, or a mix from amongst these types).
B) Pay 2 pips. If you do, roll five dice of your choice from amongst d8s, d10s and d12s (you could choose to roll all five from one of these types, or a mix from amongst these types).

I believe that the PiP gain or loss comes before any effects. Therefore, you can activate Version B even if you're at zero PiPs, and will end up with a net result of +1 PiPs. Phillip argues the reverse, where you make any payments before you gain or lose PiPs, and therefore you'd get a +1 net gain of PiPs, but need at least two PiPs to start with before you can use Version B.

This argument kinda spilled over to other abilities that mention payment, including Wave of Zeal, and the Handbook is rather unclear on this point, so clarification would be appreciated.

Technically, this would affect the "Grab for Power": It's unclear whether the PiP loss from its effect occurs before or after the PiP gain from using it as a booster.

Questions of my own:

1) What's up with the wording of Judo Throw's duration, and it's sudden cost increase?

Right now, with the odd wording of the "eject" duration (after the target's next turn), this makes it incredibly situational / nigh worthless / not worth ever using to prevent damage to allies. And I notice that the "Call of the North Wind" talent DOESN'T have this wording.

Example: You are first in initiative, allies are after, monster is last. You can't fling any of your allies to "protect" them from the monster, since they'll just land when their turn would come up, which is before the monster acts.

To use it to protect allies, you need a definite initiative order, a reason to use it for protection instead of damaging the enemy, AND a huge 8 PiPs, to gain a benefit for a single round that other talents do much better.

2) Will the useability of "IT IS NOT THIS DAY" be improved?

Right now, it's very situational, requiring an unconscious ally (cant use for yourself), 6 PiPs to use, and a standard turn to use. Its health gain (1d4) is too low to survive anything afterwards as well.

Compare with "miracle", which is a free utility, has half the cost, and grants a massive benefit (reliably heals you to full health). You can use this whenever you want, more or less, while "IT IS NOT THIS DAY" requires you to more or less hold off reviving an ally.

So I would like to print out the Pony Tales system into a binder for Christmas this year, so that my players don't need a working computer to reference the rules, or build a character, etc. And then it occurred to me that I might as well print the expansions too. And then I thought I'd go ahead and draft them right into the main book, instead of having several books.

And then I realized two things. One, my computer doesn't get along with Google Docs. Oh sure, I can whip up a character sheet, but not much more.

And two, I would have to change it every time there was some new expansion; not for me necessarily, but for everyone else who'd want such a thing.

So, what I'm wondering is whether Dan is interested in making such a thing; a Google Docs file with all the expansions plugged right in, instead of merely linked to.

How does Family Recipe react with You Will Die?

You Will Die is almost 100% weaker than it, not because of the higher cost (Ongoing Damage 5 is worth approximately -1 pips value, that's fine) but because it is Save Ends All. Despite You Will Die's "more powerful" set of debuffs, if I were hit with Family Recipe and an ally had 9 pips to spare, I'd ask to be hit with You Will Die since it is a joke compared to it to get rid of. ONE saving throw is really easy to make, especially with so many talents and utilities that boost that. Four separate ones guarantees I'll be subject to all those "additional wound" abilities for many, many turns (Statistically speaking, about 7 turns to get rid of all 4 debuffs, so basically the whole combat).

So I guess what I'm really asking is, if a big nasty enemy was hit with Family Recipe first, can the person applying You Will Die choose not to apply their Weakened, Dazed, Vulnerability, and/or saving throw penalties if they so chose? I'm pretty sure if it goes second this is a non-issue, and Family Recipe can easily "overpower" the prior debuffs and replace each and every one with a singular version of it as opposed to that really weak "save-ends all" aspect, except earlier you mentioned that Ignite's separate damage would be "eaten" by another debuff's Save Ends All instead of fracturing it, which may cause problems on the interpretation. Is [Save Ends All] a debuff poison to be avoided like the plague, that just eats other debuffs into uselessness?



For reference mechanically speaking:

Mechanics:

Sigh... Simple debuff-tracking is so much easier than all this.

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:but do not let your rage control you Ramus.

Why must you attempt to slander me when I simply disagree with you about something? I find it rude and I'd like you to stop. It's things like that that cause me to have the attitude of only pointing out flaws or imbalances only when they're slapping me in the face instead of actively looking for them to improve the system.

In text, your passion is always misunderstood as anger... Personally I can understand it, and agree that it gotta stop. Cause come on, how long are we going to have this chat that Ramsus isn't angry that people will get that he not angry?

Is Psychic Surge going to be changed at all, with the inclusion of Minor Talents?

How does "Crescendo" interact with the "Boomstick" trinket (which causes a standard attack to affect adjacent targets, which in turn grants you 5 separate single target damage rolls), if you use it on a single creature, or if split the rolls?

Ramsus wrote:

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:but do not let your rage control you Ramus.

Why must you attempt to slander me when I simply disagree with you about something? I find it rude and I'd like you to stop. It's things like that that cause me to have the attitude of only pointing out flaws or imbalances only when they're slapping me in the face instead of actively looking for them to improve the system.

How about we stop poking fun, not at all being serious, at your absolutist stances about certain design elements when you stop saying that people are, "slandering" you or, "slapping you in the face" simply because you disagree. This isn't true, which should be evident as lots of people have disagreed with changes and ideas - which usually lead to a great discussion and often changes being implemented.

I definitely misread your posts as angry. It's difficult over text-only, since we don't get any tone or expressions to supplement the words. Sorry about that.

Xel Unknown wrote:In text, your passion is always misunderstood as anger... Personally I can understand it, and agree that it gotta stop. Cause come on, how long are we going to have this chat that Ramsus isn't angry that people will get that he not angry?

It's all in how one writes a post. In this case, it's the quoting of the word situational, complete with speech marks, that makes the post look angry. Quoting someone like that is often used mockingly or with sarcasm or spite. It's also a very aggressive argument tactic, and it was used four times in the post, reinforcing the tone...

Anyway, quick question about Assassin's Gambit 10 Crit; if you get it while rolling a d10 for damage, does the double damage apply before you deal damage or after (I assume after)?

Paper Shadow wrote:Anyway, quick question about Assassin's Gambit 10 Crit; if you get it while rolling a d10 for damage, does the double damage apply before you deal damage or after (I assume after)?

Actually, the special triggers the moment you roll your die - before the full effect of the talent that you used to roll the die happens. Unless your DM wants to run things the other way for some reason. So you'll get to deal double damage on the talent that rolled the 10 as well.

how would dazing a PC who last turn used gather energy work? Would they be able to take both of the actions granted from gather energy?