Re: Official Errata: Changes and fixes to the game (Subscription Recommended)

Z2 Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:07 pm

I'm not sure about that modification to 'It's Witchcraft' for the simple fact that 'It's Witchcraft' is the ONLY thing I have ever seen Arcana used for; aside from the occasional "Perception, but with magic," check. Since the only way to DO something with the skill has been to use 'It's Witchcraft' it seems kind of pointless to add on a -7 version.

Xel Unknown Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:19 pm

This... is a horrible change. And 100% insane... Why change It's Witchcraft in such an way? WHY?

**LoganAura** Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:20 pm

Analyzing magical device
Knowing about magical history
Knowing about magic in general
Detecting magic

The reason was because It's Witchcraft was, to put it bluntly, overpowered. Especially with the 'do magical effects' thing. At least as far as I know

Hayatecooper Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:23 pm

So.. it's Witchcraft is now -7 and to negate that you need another talent..

How is that going to stop It's Witchcraft abuse? Infact... won't it now make it worse because your now losing another utility talent so you need to use IWC for more?

**LoganAura** Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:24 pm

It's making the versatility more in line. It's effectively many utilities in one, so costing 2 makes sense.
Again, this is just what I'm thinking.

Hayatecooper Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:30 pm

The thing is though, by making a player spend two utility talent slots on it, it becomes more important.

The more important a talent is the more it's going to be spammed. When I built my IWC character, I used it as a "Back up" because I have what, four other utilities at lvl 1? I may as well get some use out of them. By making us spend more time, and actually focus on "upgrading it" it's just re-enforcing the idea it's important and should be used for stuff.

And you're right.

IWC is broken in some regards(Purely cause of versatility), but in almost every game I've played(I admit that's like 3 don't judge me) IWC has been left well enough alone in most cases, cause using it is a cheap easy and rather boring fix in most situations, but it's stupidly awesome if your up against something HUGE and you pull it off.

Z2 Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:30 pm

I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:47 pm

Xel Unknown wrote:This... is a horrible change. And 100% insane... Why change It's Witchcraft in such an way? WHY?

So, let me tell you a story about a young Eladrin wizard named Kindulas. He was created in D&D 4.0.
He was really good at Arcana. He could fight in combat, sure, but his main use was in having an arcana score that could best "hard" level 30 skill checks on a roll of 2 by level 19. Because of that score, he was allowed to make arcana checks beyond the normal knowledge checks it's used for. In this way, he became one of the most valuable members of the party, and would've been even if he couldn't fight.
This created a trend of having the party's "Arcana God," someone who could "Kindulas" at magic. It was so fun, that upon creating our own system we knew we had to let players do it - use Arcana for more that knowledge or using magical tools. But, it was so OP in 4.0 we decided you had to at least take a talent to do it.
It just wasn't enough, though.
The raw power and versatility of "I can magic" is phenomenal and fun, but because of that it's above the value of one talent. I am the dev groups Arcana lover and I have to support this change because I of all people know the value of Magecraft (I mean It's Witchcraft), and unpenalized It's Witchcraft is easily worth two talents - I mean, how many other talents does it let you simulate? How many more situations is it useful in that any other talent? More than 2. Half our party's roll playing problem solving was "Kindulas do a magic" - the time the dragon was mind controlled, the two times we used the time vortex to travel, the time we redirected the god-power sigils (with my cat's help), the time we needed to make the castle fly around fast enough (with a crystal man's help), the time we needed to free a friend's soul from the soul trap, the time that we needed to disarm the magical barrier (okay, that backfired, we were supposed to leave it up), the time we connected a babbling moron psychically to the villain's mind, the time we needed to track his position via scrying... IT'S WITCHCRAFT DID ALL THESE THINGS. It's still debatably overpowered this way.

Zarhon Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:51 pm

I don't see the logic in applying a whopping -7 penalty. The IW as you've set now, is utterly worthless on its own for ANY character that doesn't fully invest in arcana (10 points, a cutie mark, and training, which turns your checks from 18 to 11), and if you already invest so much in arcana, you have no real reason to not invest in the bubbling cauldron, meaning that you just take IW because you are forced to.

On the other side of the coin, characters who previously wished to "multiclass" into a versatile (if sometimes unreliable, and certainly not maxed out) mage with a different skill focus must now either pony up another utility talent slot to keep themselves on par with their rolls, of have *every* roll be utterly worthless.

So you end up having to pay 2 talents to not have your high stats crippled, and you end up paying 2 talents to not have your average, not-min-maxed stats having a below-average "bonus".

Look at this character sheet, for instance:
Shallow Vibe, of Grand Line Adventures

Would you see it playable as a focused arcana/athletics user? With the IW change, I have to either get another utility talent to get rid of the penalty, or I have to live with having a +4 roll on arcana checks to do "magic" (keep in mind that a LOT of DMs employ a DC15 as a minimum for checks, which means the roll fails about half the time, or is outright impossible for higher DCs), which is half of the character's backstory (the other half being athletics). And with that extra utility talent I have to take, I end up with one less to take for fun or roleplay-related reason (character growth, power increase, etc...).

There's also the notion that a utility should be a "power", something that allows you to do something. It's witchcraft makes you *weaker* at the skill in question and then allows for DCs to be further increased by the DM, based on complexity.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:52 pm

Z2 wrote:I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.

Are you trying to say the DM will just adjust what he or she would've made the DC tho 7 less so it's not actually more difficult? Why would they do this? The DM should keep things scaled so that the -7 is meaningful. If they don't that's the DM's problem, or them just being nice.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:56 pm

Zarhon wrote:I don't see the logic in applying a whopping -7 penalty. The IW as you've set now, is utterly worthless on its own for ANY character that doesn't fully invest in arcana (10 points, a cutie mark, and training, which turns your checks from 18 to 11), and if you already invest so much in arcana, you have no real reason to not invest in the bubbling cauldron, meaning that you just take IW because you are forced to.

On the other side of the coin, characters who previously wished to "multiclass" into a versatile (if sometimes unreliable, and certainly not maxed out) mage with a different skill focus must now either pony up another utility talent slot to keep themselves on par with their rolls, of have *every* roll be utterly worthless.

So you end up having to pay 2 talents to not have your high stats crippled, and you end up paying 2 talents to not have your average, not-min-maxed stats having a below-average "bonus".

Look at this character sheet, for instance:
Shallow Vibe, of Grand Line Adventures

Would you see it playable? With the IW change, I have to either get another utility talent to get rid of the penalty, or I have to live with having a +4 roll on arcana checks to do "magic", which is half of the character's backstory (the other half being athletics). And with that extra utility talent I have to take, I end up with one less to take for fun or roleplay-related reason (character growth, power increase, etc...).

Yes, you do have to spec into arcana for it to be worthwhile. It's super powerful and versatile, you shouldn't get to do awesome stuff with IW without focusing on it, it's too good to just sidestep into. Sometimes, I've found, when you're sad something got taken away, maybe you loved it just because it was too good. Like those minor action builds of old.

Xel Unknown Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:57 pm

To me. I've only found It's Witchcraft only as powerful as what the player can think up to try doing, and what DC's the GM puts forth. I've yet to see It's Witchcraft brake anything the way you seem to claim it would in any of the games I've played. If anything I've not really found it powerful but just fun to play with. This update takes away the fun of that utility and I disparove of updates that remove fun from this very enjoyable system.

Hayatecooper Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:57 pm

Ok..

Just a qoute from where I picked that up.

This created a trend of having the party's "Arcana God," someone who could "Kindulas" at magic. It was so fun, that upon creating our own system we knew we had to let players do it - use Arcana for more that knowledge or using magical tools. But, it was so OP in 4.0 we decided you had to at least take a talent to do it.

I may have got that completely wrong but your basic reason for giving use It's Witchcraft(IWC for short) was. "We gave IWC out in DnD 4.0 and it made someone overpowered but hilariously fun?

I'm.. confused.

Also though IWC is fun, I wouldn't say it's overpowered. In dnd 4E(Which I assume is 4.0 do correct me if I'm wrong) You can get truly insane Arcana scores at higher levels. In Pony Tales you can get, well.... a max of 32 is as high as I can get it by(Once a day lvl 7) and permently lvl 10. Still massive, but at lvl 10 you're basically a god anyway and you pretty much have to take the Dragon Disciple Destiny to do it, so it's a bit limiting.

Z2 Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:00 pm

Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.
Are you trying to say the DM will just adjust what he or she would've made the DC tho 7 less so it's not actually more difficult? Why would they do this? The DM should keep things scaled so that the -7 is meaningful. If they don't that's the DM's problem, or them just being nice.

I'm saying that DM's were ALREADY coming up with DCs for 'It's Witchcraft' based upon how hard they wanted it to be. The very concept of an "Arcana check to DO something" required the player have the 'It's Witchcraft' ability. There is not gigantic list of DCs for every conceivable action, so the rolls required for 'Random Magic Thing' had to be come up with on the fly in the first place. Putting a flat numerical modifier on what is not actually a set number doesn't seem to have much point.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:03 pm

Z2 wrote:
Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.
Are you trying to say the DM will just adjust what he or she would've made the DC tho 7 less so it's not actually more difficult? Why would they do this? The DM should keep things scaled so that the -7 is meaningful. If they don't that's the DM's problem, or them just being nice.

I'm saying that DM's were ALREADY coming up with DCs for 'It's Witchcraft' based upon how hard they wanted it to be. The very concept of an "Arcana check to DO something" required the player have the 'It's Witchcraft' ability. There is not gigantic list of DCs for every conceivable action, so the rolls required for 'Random Magic Thing' had to be come up with on the fly in the first place. Putting a flat numerical modifier on what is not actually a set number doesn't seem to have much point.

So they build the DC based on how hard they want the DC to be and then take into account the fact that the player isn't a master at it.
I get your point, but if this is about how the DM can get around it, they can do that anyway

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:08 pm

Hayatecooper wrote:Ok..

Just a qoute from where I picked that up.
This created a trend of having the party's "Arcana God," someone who could "Kindulas" at magic. It was so fun, that upon creating our own system we knew we had to let players do it - use Arcana for more that knowledge or using magical tools. But, it was so OP in 4.0 we decided you had to at least take a talent to do it.

I may have got that completely wrong but your basic reason for giving use It's Witchcraft(IWC for short) was. "We gave IWC out in DnD 4.0 and it made someone overpowered but hilariously fun?

I'm.. confused.

Also though IWC is fun, I wouldn't say it's overpowered. In dnd 4E(Which I assume is 4.0 do correct me if I'm wrong) You can get truly insane Arcana scores at higher levels. In Pony Tales you can get, well.... a max of 32 is as high as I can get it by(Once a day lvl 7) and permently lvl 10. Still massive, but at lvl 10 you're basically a god anyway and you pretty much have to take the Dragon Disciple Destiny to do it, so it's a bit limiting.

Okay, maybe that was a little misleading to talk about the score. The point is, it wasn't how high my score was that broke IWC, it was the score that had Dan allow me to even begin to do IWC style things so that there was a use of even having such a high score.

The real point is that we found out the idea was awesome, but the range of applications was found to be worth A) more than the cost of spec-ing into Arcana. So, we added a talent before you could do it. But, it seems the cost of "Magic-ing" is worth more than the cost of both Speccing into arcana AND a single talent, so we made it two.

Ramsus Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:10 pm

Hmmm. I could see it working but, I also see people's complaints. It really works out well or poorly depending on your GM.

Does anyone have any other suggestion for how to limit It's Witchcraft so that it's not simply one Utility that allows you to potentially use Arcana to do everything that doesn't break the functionality of the talent?

Because otherwise we should probably live with the -7 and suggest to GMs that they just keep it in mind when they set DCs to determine easier and harder tasks.

There's a certain value in complaints but, we've already got over a page now and no alternatives have been suggested.

Z2 Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:10 pm

Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:
Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.
Are you trying to say the DM will just adjust what he or she would've made the DC tho 7 less so it's not actually more difficult? Why would they do this? The DM should keep things scaled so that the -7 is meaningful. If they don't that's the DM's problem, or them just being nice.

I'm saying that DM's were ALREADY coming up with DCs for 'It's Witchcraft' based upon how hard they wanted it to be. The very concept of an "Arcana check to DO something" required the player have the 'It's Witchcraft' ability. There is not gigantic list of DCs for every conceivable action, so the rolls required for 'Random Magic Thing' had to be come up with on the fly in the first place. Putting a flat numerical modifier on what is not actually a set number doesn't seem to have much point.
So they build the DC based on how hard they want the DC to be and then take into account the fact that the player isn't a master at it.
I get your point, but if this is about how the DM can get around it, they can do that anyway

It's not about 'getting around it'. It's about the fact that a -7 penalty is meaningless without something to compare it to. Since 'It's Witchcraft' does 'It's Witchcraft' things and nothing else there are no other abilities or applications to establish a baseline. Whether you call the basic version '0' or '-7', it still applies to an action all its own, and so is functionally a zero. But I think I'll just drop it before you figure out how to do something actually detrimental instead of unnecessary and inane.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:14 pm

Z2 wrote:
Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:
Kindulas wrote:
Z2 wrote:I just think this change to it's witchcraft is nonsense. The only thing that can make a DC for 'do a thing with magic' pop into existence in the first place IS "it's witchcraft". Ignoring for a moment the intent to 'make it more difficult' a -7 in this context is fairly meaningless.
Are you trying to say the DM will just adjust what he or she would've made the DC tho 7 less so it's not actually more difficult? Why would they do this? The DM should keep things scaled so that the -7 is meaningful. If they don't that's the DM's problem, or them just being nice.

I'm saying that DM's were ALREADY coming up with DCs for 'It's Witchcraft' based upon how hard they wanted it to be. The very concept of an "Arcana check to DO something" required the player have the 'It's Witchcraft' ability. There is not gigantic list of DCs for every conceivable action, so the rolls required for 'Random Magic Thing' had to be come up with on the fly in the first place. Putting a flat numerical modifier on what is not actually a set number doesn't seem to have much point.
So they build the DC based on how hard they want the DC to be and then take into account the fact that the player isn't a master at it.
I get your point, but if this is about how the DM can get around it, they can do that anyway

It's not about 'getting around it'. It's about the fact that a -7 penalty is meaningless without something to compare it to. Since 'It's Witchcraft' does 'It's Witchcraft' things and nothing else there are no other abilities or applications to establish a baseline. Whether you call the basic version '0' or '-7', it still applies to an action all its own, and so is functionally a zero. But I think I'll just drop it before you figure out how to do something actually detrimental instead of unnecessary and inane.

It's the DMs responsibility to take the -7 into account as an actual penalty. If your DM doesn't, good for you.

Hayatecooper Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:19 pm

Oh, awkward. Sorry in that case. Also I have no idea how you guys get it to say names when you qoute things...

The real point is that we found out the idea was awesome, but the range of applications was found to be worth A) more than the cost of spec-ing into Arcana. So, we added a talent before you could do it. But, it seems the cost of "Magic-ing" is worth more than the cost of both Speccing into arcana AND a single talent, so we made it two.

Ok, I get the point of making it it's own utility. That makes sense, evidently only some creatures would have the knowledge/power/skill to use it and that I agree with 100% if you could do it for free without taking anything it would be broken as all hell.

"But, it seems the cost of "Magic-ing" is worth more than the cost of both Speccing into arcana AND a single talent, so we made it two"

This, not so much. IWC is limited in the same ways as other utility talents but to a greater extent. It's limited to A. Player imagination because you get no real examples of what to do with it and you have to come up with it on the fly and B. What your PH will let you do with it when they set DCs or they can just flat out so no with less reasons needed then with other talents.

Giving it a -7 isn't going to actually help, as Z2 said you're rolling against an ever changing number so it's not actually going to make much of a difference, and to bring up my previous point, by making players spend more slots on it your just going to get them to attempt to use it more to compensate for there lack of utilities compared to everyone else. Sure it's only one, but what if you wanted to make a IWC Pegasus for example, that's almost all your slots gone with just Flight talents and IWC and it's upgrade in one fell swoop.

The system has been blared repeatedly as "YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE AND BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT!" and I've taken that to heart(Earth Pony who is allergic to dirt, fun times), by forcing people to take more stuff for IWC if they want to use it the same way they always have limits the utilities and therefore the creativity of the player.

TL;DR -
Well it goes like, stop being a lazy bastard and read the text. It's not that long, just terrible grammar.

**Nehiel Mori** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:27 pm

I think and could be quite wrong that some of this problem is caused by PH's not running Its Witchcraft properly. To allivate this potentially non-existence problem, wheres the way Its Witchcraft is supposed to be PH'ed for, taken from the PH handlers guide. Could end up not helping at all with the arguement BUUUT its here now.

Spoiler:

AProcrastinatingWriter Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:33 pm

I see what this is attempting to do: giving your character the ability to interact with magical effects is essentially the same as giving your character the ability to fly, so to speak, and therefore requires a penalty to your rolls unless you practice a bit just like flight does.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:38 pm

Hayatecooper wrote:Oh, awkward. Sorry in that case. Also I have no idea how you guys get it to say names when you qoute things...

The real point is that we found out the idea was awesome, but the range of applications was found to be worth A) more than the cost of spec-ing into Arcana. So, we added a talent before you could do it. But, it seems the cost of "Magic-ing" is worth more than the cost of both Speccing into arcana AND a single talent, so we made it two.

Ok, I get the point of making it it's own utility. That makes sense, evidently only some creatures would have the knowledge/power/skill to use it and that I agree with 100% if you could do it for free without taking anything it would be broken as all hell.

"But, it seems the cost of "Magic-ing" is worth more than the cost of both Speccing into arcana AND a single talent, so we made it two"

This, not so much. IWC is limited in the same ways as other utility talents but to a greater extent. It's limited to A. Player imagination because you get no real examples of what to do with it and you have to come up with it on the fly and B. What your PH will let you do with it when they set DCs or they can just flat out so no with less reasons needed then with other talents.

Giving it a -7 isn't going to actually help, as Z2 said you're rolling against an ever changing number so it's not actually going to make much of a difference, and to bring up my previous point, by making players spend more slots on it your just going to get them to attempt to use it more to compensate for there lack of utilities compared to everyone else. Sure it's only one, but what if you wanted to make a IWC Pegasus for example, that's almost all your slots gone with just Flight talents and IWC and it's upgrade in one fell swoop.

The system has been blared repeatedly as "YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE AND BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT!" and I've taken that to heart(Earth Pony who is allergic to dirt, fun times), by forcing people to take more stuff for IWC if they want to use it the same way they always have limits the utilities and therefore the creativity of the player.

TL;DR -
Well it goes like, stop being a lazy bastard and read the text. It's not that long, just terrible grammar.

Did you assume I didn't read your post and called me a lazy bastard?
1) So it's made for the highly imaginative player. Things have to be balanced against the upper ceiling of their usability more than the lower. So Duelist +2 wasn't broken if you don't multi-attack - it was taken by the people who DID. Sounds like people need to get a better understanding of just how useful IWC can be. In the campaigns we are in, it's constantly used for tons of things, and it saves the party's life a lot. You mention we are going to make people feel like they need to use it more to compensate. Sounds like they need to use it more because they don't realize just how much they were able to or should've been doing.
2) Most utility talents do about 1 thing. This does just about anything with a DC. If your DMs are severely limiting what you can do with it, maybe its because it was overpowered and they were trying to leash it. Maybe they won't have to so much now.

I think the big issue, I'll state again, is many of you don't actually realize how much you can do with IWC.

**Kindulas** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:40 pm

AProcrastinatingWriter wrote:I see what this is attempting to do: giving your character the ability to interact with magical effects is essentially the same as giving your character the ability to fly, so to speak, and therefore requires a penalty to your rolls unless you practice a bit just like flight does.

Exactly, and IWC does WAY MORE than flying.

**Nehiel Mori** Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:40 pm

Kindulas wrote:
Did you assume I didn't read your post and called me a lazy bastard?

To be fair Kindulas, you are a lazy bastard.

Sponsored content