Ask a Simple Question - Get a Simple Answer

Also because some combinations of abilities do need to be worse than other abilities in varying situations. If where-it-hurts made all AOEs better than Despair, the less-reliable despair would have little incentive.

Some things have to be better than others in multiple situations, otherwise there's no such thing as strategic build decisions.

Kindulas wrote:

Ramsus wrote:So now that that's established.... is there a reason for that? Fireswath + Where it Hurts would still be noticeably more expensive than Despair and Fireball + Where it Hurts is offset by Fireball's only additional feature to it's damage being the fact that it does hit multiple targets.

Yeah but Fireswath where only 1 target is suffering from a save-ends letting Where is Hurts tack an extra 1d12 onto the entire Fireswath? That why is needs "To that creature"

But it can also add the extra damage to all creatures suffering a save ends effect, so that when you (as a quick for instance) Fireswath 6 targets, and one has a save ends effect you get to deal 1d10 + 1d12 to the guy with a save ends, and 1d10 to the others. Whereas when you do the same to 6 guys suffering save ends effects you deal the 1d10 + 1d12 to all of them. For 5 pips. Which is more than Despair's 3, so it really isn't the best way to be doing it when all 6 have them but makes up for it by doing damage to people without save ends effects so it has a little more utility.

But with having to spend it for each target suffering from a save ends effect, you might as well have said that Where it Hurts shouldn't be taken in any AoE build because it just gives you somewhere to burn all of your pips away when you could get bigger dividends off of something like Midnight's blade (Oh, you spent 5 on Hellfire Rain, and now want to WiH all of them? 12 pips please. No thanks, I'll spend the same number of actions and 10 fewer pips to get +6 damage to all of them) or Wild Abandon on similar logic.

On an unrelated note, why is the:

Phoenix Cape - 3000 Gold
Trinket
Once per battle, if you are unconscious, you may regain 1d12 hp.

When the stated appx value for combat traits is 2000 Gold, such as this remarkably similar ability:

Phoenix Rising - 1/Day
You may use this trait only when you are below 0 hp. You gain 1d12 hp.

Note: before you point out the 1/battle vice 1/day, I would draw your attention to the Unconscious clause vice below 0 hp, which in turn makes the Trait better in combos offsetting the usable fewer times per day. Especially since I wouldn't expect a GM to knock you Unconscious every single encounter, nor even 1/day.

The fact that it's 1/day is indeed a huge nerf. And if your GM is being so nice that you don't have to worry about even being knocked out, not much point in character optimization to begin with.

I'd also further emphasize what we've said before. Traits are not appropriately balanced yet. We decided after the trait beta was released what they should be worth relative to standard actions and items. We still intend to go back and redo them.

thematthew wrote:

Kindulas wrote:

Ramsus wrote:So now that that's established.... is there a reason for that? Fireswath + Where it Hurts would still be noticeably more expensive than Despair and Fireball + Where it Hurts is offset by Fireball's only additional feature to it's damage being the fact that it does hit multiple targets.

Yeah but Fireswath where only 1 target is suffering from a save-ends letting Where is Hurts tack an extra 1d12 onto the entire Fireswath? That why is needs "To that creature"

But it can also add the extra damage to all creatures suffering a save ends effect, so that when you (as a quick for instance) Fireswath 6 targets, and one has a save ends effect you get to deal 1d10 + 1d12 to the guy with a save ends, and 1d10 to the others. Whereas when you do the same to 6 guys suffering save ends effects you deal the 1d10 + 1d12 to all of them. For 5 pips. Which is more than Despair's 3, so it really isn't the best way to be doing it when all 6 have them but makes up for it by doing damage to people without save ends effects so it has a little more utility.

But with having to spend it for each target suffering from a save ends effect, you might as well have said that Where it Hurts shouldn't be taken in any AoE build because it just gives you somewhere to burn all of your pips away when you could get bigger dividends off of something like Midnight's blade (Oh, you spent 5 on Hellfire Rain, and now want to WiH all of them? 12 pips please. No thanks, I'll spend the same number of actions and 10 fewer pips to get +6 damage to all of them) or Wild Abandon on similar logic.

On an unrelated note, why is the:

Phoenix Cape - 3000 Gold
Trinket
Once per battle, if you are unconscious, you may regain 1d12 hp.

When the stated appx value for combat traits is 2000 Gold, such as this remarkably similar ability:

Phoenix Rising - 1/Day
You may use this trait only when you are below 0 hp. You gain 1d12 hp.

Note: before you point out the 1/battle vice 1/day, I would draw your attention to the Unconscious clause vice below 0 hp, which in turn makes the Trait better in combos offsetting the usable fewer times per day. Especially since I wouldn't expect a GM to knock you Unconscious every single encounter, nor even 1/day.

1) the traits are getting a rework at some point, though that is an interesting note about how the trait can be used even when you have the 'stay up till -15' trait. It's because of that -15HP trait we've been using "unconscious" lately instead of "below" 15 HP. I wonder, though, does the phoenix allow you to return when dead...?

2) This is an interesting argument going on, and it should be noted that Where it hurts is meant for single target striking, so if people are arguing it needs to be buffed because it isn't fulfilling it's role as an AoE booster... it doesn't have one. Dealing 1d12 as a minor action would naturally be -3, so getting to do it at -2 with the targeting save-ends conditions is why it's economical, especially now if you trigger it against Whirling Blades as well

I'd say that it is more of a "if your GM is being so heavy handed you have to worry about being knocked unconscious every fight and are fighting multiple fights per day, you might want to reconsider your GM, 'cause he doesn't like you" kinda thing. Since a 1/day power is refreshed when your party takes the rest of the day off, and gets to start fresh tomorrow.

Though I do accept your 'the talents aren't updated, please don't pick them apart yet' argument. That one's pretty solid.

This is an interesting argument going on, and it should be noted that Where it hurts is meant for single target striking, so if people are arguing it needs to be buffed because it isn't fulfilling it's role as an AoE booster... it doesn't have one. Dealing 1d12 as a minor action would naturally be -3, so getting to do it at -2 with the targeting save-ends conditions is why it's economical, especially now if you trigger it against Whirling Blades as well

The thing is that Despair is still better unless only part of the group has save ends, since it does 2d12 to 6 targets for 3 pips. Fireswath would do less damage for more pips unless the group is around half debuffed. This basically means that it gives a minor buff to people who throw around AoEs if they have a group that'll give a small number of debuffs, whereas Despair is still better if you happen to have Hellfire Rain or other large area debuffs to throw down.

I do agree that the +1d12 to all, hahaha, interpretation is overpowered, but the +1d12 to one target per 2 pips interpretation pointlessly nerfs a subpar build. Which is kinda silly when you can give people things that would actually make them think outside the box, while reducing the effectiveness of overpowered builds should be the actual intent.

Edit: Also, Where it Hurts is a Free Attack, not a reaction, so you can only use it once per turn...

thematthew wrote:I'd say that it is more of a "if your GM is being so heavy handed you have to worry about being knocked unconscious every fight and are fighting multiple fights per day, you might want to reconsider your GM, 'cause he doesn't like you" kinda thing. Since a 1/day power is refreshed when your party takes the rest of the day off, and gets to start fresh tomorrow.

This is almost a self-defeating argument. The only reason you get these powers is as insurance or as part of a build. If your DM isn't going to knock you unconscious more than once a day anyway, if even that, then you really don't need to be worried about optimizing your character in the first place. Realistically, optimized characters are all overkill if they're facing average encounters built for non-optimized characters. Having extra damage is overkill as well, because your DM expects you to be able to deal less damage and wants you to succeed... So you can be pretty sure you'll win the fight anyway.

Optimization over the average is near pointless if you're assuming that your DM is only throwing monsters suited to non-optimized parties at you. It feels cool to know you're more powerful, but it is actually near-pointless. It's only when the monsters get insanely lucky, you get insanely unlucky or you're dealing with a DM that plays things more realistically and allows you to walk into extremely dangerous and terrifying encounters on occasion - even repeatedly in a single day such as through dungeon crawls or a series of skirmishes within a grand-scale battle - as well as some much easier encounters in some sessions... Then you need to worry about having powerful characters that can overkill the average encounter or overdefend the average encounter.

So, in short, saying that a 1/battle rez isn't much better than 1/day because your DM will be nice isn't a relevant argument any more than saying, "Well you don't need to use It's Over on turn 2 anyway because if your DM is throwing monsters at you that require such extreme lengths, you should get a new DM." While this statement is true, such a DM that does these things regularly probably isn't much fun, it doesn't make the build any more invalid.

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:

thematthew wrote:I'd say that it is more of a "if your GM is being so heavy handed you have to worry about being knocked unconscious every fight and are fighting multiple fights per day, you might want to reconsider your GM, 'cause he doesn't like you" kinda thing. Since a 1/day power is refreshed when your party takes the rest of the day off, and gets to start fresh tomorrow.

So, in short, saying that a 1/battle rez isn't much better than 1/day because your DM will be nice isn't a relevant argument any more than saying, "Well you don't need to use It's Over on turn 2 anyway because if your DM is throwing monsters at you that require such extreme lengths, you should get a new DM." While this statement is true, such a DM that does these things regularly probably isn't much fun, it doesn't make the build any more invalid.

Just to be perfectly fair, it is a little bit more relevant that saying you don't need it's over on turn two because if you CAN it's over on turn two, it IS going to do something. Whereas this health gain is a reactionary preventative measure, or something with a trigger, so it's as much about how many times you CAN use the revive as "need to." Maxing damage is always more damage, but he's taking into account the probable opportunities to use the power per day.

Still, of course, having it as an encounter as opposed to a daily IS huge, because it has to be fair in say hard games AND if you're using some kind of glass-cannon build that drops often - so if you don't drop often, THEN the 1/battle isn't worth much more than 1/day TO YOU, but in general, in terms of universal mechanical balance, it often enough is.

Kindulas wrote:
Just to be perfectly fair, it is a little bit more relevant that saying you don't need it's over on turn two because if you CAN it's over on turn two, it IS going to do something. Whereas this health gain is a reactionary preventative measure, or something with a trigger, so it's as much about how many times you CAN use the revive as "need to." Maxing damage is always more damage, but he's taking into account the probable opportunities to use the power per day.

Not really, it's just the illusion of 'winning more'. It's the difference between dealing 20 damage in a game of magic with an efficient aggro deck and dealing 99999999 by putting together an infinite damage combo. Both win the game. By dealing It's Over! on turn 2 when you can comfortably expect to win the fight regardless, the combo is redundant just the same way that a 'get out of death free card' is redundant. Either way you don't need it to win. So the argument applies equally to both examples. Neither combo ups your win percentage significantly against a DM that is building things that he expects non-optimized players to defeat.

Kindulas wrote:Still, of course, having it as an encounter as opposed to a daily IS huge, because it has to be fair in say hard games AND if you're using some kind of glass-cannon build that drops often - so if you don't drop often, THEN the 1/battle isn't worth much more than 1/day TO YOU, but in general, in terms of universal mechanical balance, it often enough is.

Very true.

Does this item:
Sword-Chucks - 3000 Gold
Weapon
Whenever you roll a 1 on a damage die, you suffer 7 damage.
Three times per battle, you may use the following combat talent.

[+1] Sword-Chucks, Yo! - Standard Attack [3/Battle]
Deal 2d10 damage to target creature.

Still deal damage to you if you have:
Unacceptable!
You may reroll all 1s on dice you roll in combat.

You do realize that if you are getting knocked out in every single fight you are dealing with a Gygaxian style GM, right? And that the whole point of a GM is to create a game where people are having fun together in a cooperative storytelling session, not murder their players and laugh.

If one player is reliably getting knocked unconscious every fight, it logically follows that one of 3 things is true:

1) multiple party members are getting knocked out every fight (GM is using things that are more powerful than the party consistently)

2) Both the Defender and the Healer builds are not present/suck balls (Party is not designing to work together at all)

3) The GM is focused firing on one player all the damn time (GM is a dick)

Note that these three options are not really good things. About the only person who should be saying 'whoops, I fell unconscious again, that makes 3 times today!' is the guy who injures himself horribly for power and is incompetent at building for his big shtick.

To say that character optimization requires a killer GM is a ridiculous argument, and to say that every game or even most games are going to be running with many combats per day that are all hard and may fucking kill you is completely denying the Skirmish style encounters that your GM guide brings up.

Honestly, if a party is going to be fighting a bunch of fights in a day, they are most likely going to be simple quick fights anyway. The fights that really get a lot of screen time are not nearly as common, and really happen about 1-2 times a day on average. Which in turn means that expecting to be knocked out more than once a day would mean you are expecting the absolute worst case scenario.

Last point here, the party really is supposed to win most fights and the big climactic battles that make you use stuff like this are supposed to be rare. Not 3-4 times a day.

Edit: @Yawnmon: Doesn't apply, had an argument with Dan about that weapon already.

Yawnmon wrote:Does this item:
Sword-Chucks - 3000 Gold
Weapon
Whenever you roll a 1 on a damage die, you suffer 7 damage.
Three times per battle, you may use the following combat talent.

[+1] Sword-Chucks, Yo! - Standard Attack [3/Battle]
Deal 2d10 damage to target creature.

Still deal damage to you if you have:
Unacceptable!
You may reroll all 1s on dice you roll in combat.

Oh, I've been wondering that as well. You could get some fun combos if Unacceptable doesn't negate the fact that you rolled a 1. Such as with other traits like: I meant to do that.

Edit: I guess it doesn't work that way though, but you can still choose to accept the 1 if you want...

Thematthew, if you want to say "the GM won't make the players fall unconscious much - so 1/battle isn't much better than 1/day" you have to equally apply that argument to other optimization. In reality, most GMs won't throw many encounters at you that require optimized builds to deal with. Most GMs throw challenges that they expect average characters to be able to deal with, ones that require neither builds that make them nigh-unkillable every combat *or* deal ridiculous damage by uncorking "it's over" on turn 2.

The problem here is that you're attempting to say that the defensive abilities should be balanced by assuming DMs want you to not go unconscious very often (which, by the way, means that you're pretty much guaranteed to win the fight - since if the enemies aren't knocking you unconscious you should just kill them given enough time and turns)... And you have to also balance the offensive abilities that way to avoid special pleading. If you're dealing with a reasonable DM, you won't need to use It's Over on turn 2 to win the fight either. It's only when facing challenges above and beyond the norm that such optimized builds become relevant. After all, it doesn't matter how optimized you are in a practical sense if the DM expects you to win with an average build anyway. It's like bringing a 2000 volt battery to power something that only needs 10 volts. Sure, you'll have enough power either way - but the overkill is called overkill for a reason.

In short, if you want to try using this argument you do have to use it equally for all "more-powerful-than-probably-necessary-for-a-reasonable-GM's-encounters" builds. Also, would you mind writing with a little less profanity? Some younger readers go over this as well. I'm sure we all write with profanity now and then, it's fine and I'm sure I do it too, but seems a little unnecessary in your last post.

Yawnmon wrote:Does this item:
Sword-Chucks - 3000 Gold
Weapon
Whenever you roll a 1 on a damage die, you suffer 7 damage.
Three times per battle, you may use the following combat talent.

[+1] Sword-Chucks, Yo! - Standard Attack [3/Battle]
Deal 2d10 damage to target creature.

Still deal damage to you if you have:
Unacceptable!
You may reroll all 1s on dice you roll in combat.

Absolutely not. It's a very nice combo. =)

Basically, since you are "rerolling" the die - it never actually turned up a 1 in the first place. You keep rerolling it until it gets something that isn't a 1, and so Sword-Chucks will never hurt you if you have Unacceptable.

My apologies for the profanity, I tend to write like a talk and profanity is almost second nature at work.

The thing is that I don't think character optimization is necessary. I think it is a fun thing to do with my free time, and just like the GM shouldn't be designing his encounters to deal with the guy who uncorks It's Over on turn 2, (s)he shouldn't be letting his players build that kind of character.

The player-GM power balance is a very tenuous one, and either member can throw it off horribly. In D&D it's the wizard who has infinite wishes by level 9, and here it's the guy who does It's Over on turn 2. These players are not playing the game, they're ruining it for people and why would you play with people who derive fun from just that.

Unless you have a whole group, GM included, who are okay with that being their expected power level you really shouldn't be expecting that as your baseline. I believe in designing things to limit severe powergaming, but not really on the expectation of it.

No problem.

I absolutely agree that we want to design to make optimization rewarding, but not overwhelming. This system is very fun to optimize in, because there's a lot of possibilities and ways to gain small advantages. It's a lot of fun.

I also agree that doing It's Over on turn two is not good for the system. It's Over is a relic of the time before items and traits, when it really couldn't be efficiently activated until turn 5 or 6 anyway - when we wanted battles to be over regardless. With the new inclusions, we certainly are going to deal with It's Over at some point soon. A severe nerf to the power is coming, and/or to certain enabling effects.

However, it's only this one argument you made about the Phoenix Cloak that I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that it applies equally to things like, "It's Over on turn 2". Just because something might not be strictly necessary against a kind and reasonable DM that sets the bar at a place you can comfortable step over doesn't mean that it's less valuable. All powerful optimized builds are going to be strictly unnecessary when it comes to a kind and reasonable DM. That doesn't mean they're less powerful.

It's precisely because I agree with you that the system should be balanced and shouldn't make insane power-gaming profitable that I'm bringing up this argument's holes - because if it didn't have any holes then we wouldn't need to much worry about optimization in the first place (as such optimization isn't strictly necessary). That's how D&D 3.5 teetered along, because the players are mostly supposed to win anyway. The fact the system was absurdly breakable wasn't a huge issue in that regard, but the extreme power differences among players and the fact it made life difficult for relevant challenges to show up made the lack of balance unwieldy.

Actually what made 3.5 a real issue was a combination of a lack of balance between players, a huge host of writers who didn't actually communicate well between each other, a collection of legacy mechanics which were only there because 'D&D has always had them' and a lack of playtesting for a large portion of the material.

This created many problems, from the Group of 4 shocker lizards (EL 6 encounter) Being able to fry the party for 8d8 damage on turn 1 (potentially killing a party member or 2) to the wizard with infinite cost free wishes at level 9 all the way to the monk being extra baggage at level 16 and finally the gaining power by losing levels.

My whole arguments about things like "It's Over on turn 2" or the old "Condemn killing both users loop" or any of the other really stupid broken things I bring up is solely so they can get fixed and go away. When I bring up something like how Sword-Chucks have an unnecessary flaw for their price, or Pheonix Cape is overpriced, or Smash and Grab is not good (which you still haven't given feedback on the talents I suggested as alternatives to what's currently written) it's because I don't think these things are good enough. And you can talk about Timmy and Johnny and Spike all you want here for why things are written as they are, but in the end Spike isn't a player for an RPG. His goal is to win, no matter what, and that makes him ruin other people's fun. That is inherently bad in an RPG. Also, you forgot about Steve. Steve is an important role in RPG players, he's there for the story. He's not that concerned that his combos aren't great, or his numbers aren't huge, or even that he doesn't win every single time. He just wants to play the game with friends, and see what the GM came up with for a story to play in.

And in making RPGs, you actually pander to Steve. Because Spike is a jerk, and both Timmy and Johnny will be happy with the game so long as there are things in it with big, flashy effects or that combo well, but Steve actually wants the game to be smooth running so he doesn't have to worry about if his build is good enough. He just has to worry about how he's going to woo the princess, or how to find the dragon's lair.

I understand that I have brought up a lot of powergaming issues, and overpowered character optimization, but those are examples of bad things to be fixed. The game should not be built expecting that as a balance point, these kind of things should be cleaned up and taken down a peg or two. If there are a million different options, and ten of them wipe the floor with everything outside of that group of ten options, you have made a game with eleven options: the ten good ones, and auto-lose. That sucks, plain and simple.

Honestly speaking though, a power that self heals you once per whatever when you are unconscious (or at least should be) doesn't even concern me that much, since ongoing damage doesn't stop when at zero makes the Bloodwand into 'at the start of my turn I auto-rez with 4 hp so long as I have more than -11 and didn't save against this' if you use it on yourself.

thematthew wrote:Actually what made 3.5 a real issue was a combination of a lack of balance between players, a huge host of writers who didn't actually communicate well between each other, a collection of legacy mechanics which were only there because 'D&D has always had them' and a lack of playtesting for a large portion of the material.

Yep, I wasn't dissecting all of 3.5's production - I was dissecting one aspect of 3.5's gameplay.

thematthew wrote:My whole arguments about things like "It's Over on turn 2" or the old "Condemn killing both users loop" or any of the other really stupid broken things I bring up is solely so they can get fixed and go away.

I know. And I also know that we don't always have time to work out the correct fix right away. There's several issues we're tackling all at once as well as working on expansions, other games and the rest of our lives. It also takes a very long time answering all the questions posed to us about rulings and possible game exploits that we can in the comprehensive detail that they deserve. So sometimes patience is a virtue, albeit a painful one.

thematthew wrote:And you can talk about Timmy and Johnny and Spike all you want here for why things are written as they are, but in the end Spike isn't a player for an RPG. His goal is to win, no matter what, and that makes him ruin other people's fun. That is inherently bad in an RPG.

Aww... I guess Karilyn and I don't have any place in RPGs then. =(

Basic game design demonstrates that having Spike as an opponent is worse than having Spike as an ally. Does Spike not belong in a game like Magic? It's a lot better to feel a bit inadequate fighting alongside a Spike than to get steamrolled in a PvP game. Should all games ban players that want to excel and win? Of course not. Cooperative combat systems, as found in many RPGs, are far more Spike-friendly than most systems.

Furthermore, Pony Tales is one of the most Spike-friendly RPGs out there. I'm a huge min/maxer myself, and we built the Pony Tales system with that in mind - to protect myself from me. Many min/maxers want to build the most powerful combat characters but the reason they're playing RPGs and is often for the roleplaying. Those that just want to stomp opponents can enjoy MMOs and more competitively-focused games that deliver more instant feedback. Often a min/maxer like me and quite a few of my friends does indeed want to sink into the world and explore. They want to be epic heroes in a grand adventure and build their characters to honor this dream. That's why Pony Tales (and Living Legends-same system) is flavor-malleable and doesn't allow a player to trade utility talents for extra combat effectiveness and why no race is better at a type of character than any other. So people that care about power level don't need to choose between playing a grand roleplaying concept and a powerful one. They don't need to choose between flavorful and interesting utilities or being more effective in combat. This frees the min/maxer to max their fun in combat without minimizing their engagement with the rest of the game. This is a system that doesn't get in my way, as a min/maxer and Johnny/Spike hybrid myself.

thematthew wrote: Also, you forgot about Steve. Steve is an important role in RPG players, he's there for the story. He's not that concerned that his combos aren't great, or his numbers aren't huge, or even that he doesn't win every single time. He just wants to play the game with friends, and see what the GM came up with for a story to play in.

Just because we aren’t talking about this aspect, do you really think we’ve forgotten about it? All the development of destinies and utility talents and racial options to free up new character concepts and give flavor new life were built to expand story options. But even that is minimal, because the story and the system are almost independent as long as the system doesn’t get in the way of the story. You can easily run the same story in D&D 4e as you can in Pony Tales as you can in any number of systems. The combat system just exists to facilitate combat in an engaging way and help tell organic stories from within the perspective of combat – as well as acting as a palette-cleanser for heavy roleplay that DMs can use to add variety to 5-6 hour gaming sessions. These are some of the reasons that combat has a whole system and isn’t just another opposing skill check.

TLDR; You seem to be drastically oversimplifying the already-simplified player psychographics and, furthermore, are ignoring the presence of hybrid types. Many players have aspects of the various psychographics combined or vary between them in different situations. For example, when I am in-between sessions I’m an incurable min/maxer spike/johnny that wants to build the most powerful character possible with the slickest combos around. When I’m in combat, I’m a kooky Timmy that wants to uncork the coolest and most awe-inspiring experience imaginable. But when I sit down to the RPG table, I hope we don’t even get into combat – because I’m there for the story that my epic hero is about to help bring to life.


Either way, as you're asking about the core of game design now - the questions and answers can no longer be simple. If you'd like to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me or start a new thread.

Is there some reason why Ongoing Damage continues to function while at 0 or fewer hp, or even -15? I know regeneration doesn't because it wold be an auto rez, but Ongoing Damage continuing after reaching zero can easily lead to the character being killed if the party can't spare the actions to save the character, or if they're just unlucky.

Stairc, you were the one who brought up Spike, Timmy, and Johnny in the first place as an excuse for why you were doing things that didn't make any sense to us. In those cases you do seem to have forgotten entirely about Steve (you asked) as you were specifically stating you were designing something for Spike or such. Anything made solely to please Spike is going to make Steve sad.

No matter what you say, you are not Spike. You may be part Spike, but, you are not a total Spike and no RPG benefits from Spike being as Spike as Spike can Spike. There's no need to design for Spike, Timmy, or Johnny at all. If possible (it's not by a long shot) you'd want to design things so as to make Spike an impossible way to play. You detract from everyone's fun when you try to "win" all by yourself in a cooperative game. Timmy and Johnny don't need any consideration at all, you'll please them without even trying unless your combat system is only three moves that everyone has. Steve is the only archetype you should be designing for in an RPG, in combat or out. You will get things Spike, Timmy, and Johnny like while designing for Steve. You will get things that ruin the fun for Steve if you design for Spike, Timmy, or Johnny.

Ramsus wrote:Stairc, you were the one who brought up Spike, Timmy, and Johnny in the first place as an excuse for why you were doing things that didn't make any sense to us. In those cases you do seem to have forgotten entirely about Steve (you asked) as you were specifically stating you were designing something for Spike or such. Anything made solely to please Spike is going to make Steve sad.

No matter what you say, you are not Spike. You may be part Spike, but, you are not a total Spike and no RPG benefits from Spike being as Spike as Spike can Spike. There's no need to design for Spike, Timmy, or Johnny at all. If possible (it's not by a long shot) you'd want to design things so as to make Spike an impossible way to play. You detract from everyone's fun when you try to "win" all by yourself in a cooperative game. Timmy and Johnny don't need any consideration at all, you'll please them without even trying unless your combat system is only three moves that everyone has. Steve is the only archetype you should be designing for in an RPG, in combat or out. You will get things Spike, Timmy, and Johnny like while designing for Steve. You will get things that ruin the fun for Steve if you design for Spike, Timmy, or Johnny.

psst... we're pulling this portion of the conversation out of this thread, as it is a lot more than the simple question - simple answer that it intended...

Ramsus wrote:Stairc, you were the one who brought up Spike, Timmy, and Johnny in the first place as an excuse for why you were doing things that didn't make any sense to us. In those cases you do seem to have forgotten entirely about Steve (you asked) as you were specifically stating you were designing something for Spike or such. Anything made solely to please Spike is going to make Steve sad.

If you'd like to continue this conversation, please start another thread. It's no longer a simple question for a simple answer.

But in keeping with the spirit of a simple answer - all I'll say in response is that what you and thematthew are calling a "Spike" is not what Mark Rosewater (the writer of that article) or I are referring to when we mention a "Spike". Now I'm beginning to understand why Rosewater wrote a whole second article to that one, during the beginning of which he mentioned that people were taking the psychographics as far too simple abstractions of a single stereotype.

In short, what you're talking about isn't what we're talking about. Which is why you are rejecting my definition of Spike in favor of your own and then trying to use your definition to debunk something that I said about my definition of Spike. At that point it becomes two completely different sides talking past one another, and not at all a helpful discussion. As this continues, let's at least use the same definitions for the terms.

I'll definitely agree that a jerk that doesn't care about his friends' experience and that isn't interested at all in story is going to not do well at a story-focused friendly game. However, that's also not the kind of player I'm talking about.

thematthew wrote:Is there some reason why Ongoing Damage continues to function while at 0 or fewer hp, or even -15? I know regeneration doesn't because it wold be an auto rez, but Ongoing Damage continuing after reaching zero can easily lead to the character being killed if the party can't spare the actions to save the character, or if they're just unlucky.

Because Ongoing damage is balanced as just another way of dealing normal damage. Taking one big hit that drops you significantly below 0 vs several turns of ongoing damage is the same thing mechanically. And players are going to get unlucky and die in any case. This system is extremely forgiving when it comes to death, only leaving players comatose at the point where most systems kill characters.

Furthermore, the gameplay energy shoots through the room when acid is eating away at your unconscious friend. The urgency to save them is heightened and creates additional opportunities for compelling ludonarrative. In a very forgiving system that lets players spring up easily from being knocked below 0, having an additional way to add tension is a great gameplay device at the fingertips of a DM.

Easier balancing, fewer rules to memorize (not needing to remember that ongoing stops below 0) plus additional DM options equal reasons-to-not-make-the-extra-rule.

1) If an ally is dominated by an enemy, and you use your own dominate effect on that ally, does the enemy's effect get cancelled out in favor of yours, or does it remain through it? Who gets priority over control?

2) Can a player who used dominate on an ally choose to have them freed of said effect (in other words, if its a save ends or has a duration, it gets removed by order of the player who afflicted it), or do they have to save/wait regardless of controllers wishes?

3) Can a player choose to not control the actions of a dominated creature (letting them do their turn as they normally would, even though they are still affected by domination)?

4) How do interrupts and reactions (Such as Punishing blow, Slashback, Stunning heron's hoof, Vengeance is mine...) work when triggered from a full or partial "crescendo" attack? Do they trigger from the whole attack, once, or individually for each of its multiple attacks?

Zarhon wrote:1) If an ally is dominated by an enemy, and you use your own dominate effect on that ally, does the enemy's effect get cancelled out in favor of yours, or does it remain through it? Who gets priority over control?

2) Can a player who used dominate on an ally choose to have them freed of said effect (in other words, if its a save ends or has a duration, it gets removed by order of the player who afflicted it), or do they have to save/wait regardless of controllers wishes?

3) Can a player choose to not control the actions of a dominated creature (letting them do their turn as they normally would, even though they are still affected by domination)?

4) How do interrupts and reactions (Such as Punishing blow, Slashback, Stunning heron's hoof, Vengeance is mine...) work when triggered from a full or partial "crescendo" attack? Do they trigger from the whole attack, once, or individually for each of its multiple attacks?

1) The domination overrides, you now control you ally
2) I do not believe so. I might make sense in the domination flavor wise, but it doesn't for most other effect and mechanically save-ends effects are save-ends effects, and become independent of their originator
3)I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I see what you're trying to do with #1 there, but I don't think that works.
4) Crescendo makes separate triggers. It's cool that way.

Uhm, I would think that for domination, "Do what you will!" is a legitimate command. Which would answer 2 and 3 if true. But I suppose that's why it's here. O_o

Domination requires that you control the creature's turns. You can ask the player what they want you to have them do and have them do that. However, you can't automatically end effects you bestow - whether it's domination or not. If you could, you wouldn't have to worry about the downside of Dark Bargain at all.