Ask a Simple Question - Get a Simple Answer

Fury of the Tempest wrote:A crit overhaul? As in, an overhaul in just how they opperate, or something more major where the current crit's are changed or even added to?

https://ponytales.forumotion.com/t588-special-move-discussion-call-for-overhaul?highlight=special+move
This will explain

Can Derp's wording be fixed to clearly mean that it combos with stuff such as This is Whining and Team Awesome?

Xel Unknown wrote:Can Derp's wording be fixed to clearly mean that it combos with stuff such as This is Whining and Team Awesome?

When's the last time you looked at it? Is it still unclear?

sunbeam wrote:Phoenix Cape - 3000 Gold
Trinket
Once per battle, if you are unconscious, you may regain 2d12 hp.


Is this a free action, and if so, shouldn't it be explicitly listed as such?

You can't take actions while unconscious, so that would make it useless. You're right though, it should have some sort of "Once per battle, if unconscious at the beginning of your turn, you may regain 2d12 hp."

Specific overrides the general guys, Phoenix Cape is fine...

Also, does Grandeur stack? I'm PRETTY SURE that if you have 2 characters with the trait you get +2, but I figured I should check...

True, as is it looks like a part of old templating style. It should be a free action that explicitly states you can use it while unconcious

Is the untraceable racial meant to be named the same as the untraceable enchantment?

good point, something needs a new name

Z2 wrote:Specific overrides the general guys, Phoenix Cape is fine...

Also, does Grandeur stack? I'm PRETTY SURE that if you have 2 characters with the trait you get +2, but I figured I should check...

Still skipped this question, twice now...

Speaking of Grandeur, how does it interact with Falling With Style and other things that re-roll off a nat 1?  Seems like Grandeur would technically push an ally outside of their re-roll range.

Right now, these things do actually stack. It might seem odd, but the idea is that a party of baby dragons shouldn't be super-punished by the inability to stack.
However, the stacking is a little much. We're going to add a rule that the same racial/utility talent cannot stack, and then edit Baby Dragon so that there's a second choice beyond Friendship is Dragons without using Genetic Engineering so that it's simple for a draconic party to just keep one member with Friendship is Dragons.

Also, a "nat 1" or "nat 20" refer only to the number on the d20 itself, no other bonuses affect that "natural" number.

I still think you guys are way too worried about people taking Grandeur and other ally bonus granting abilities. From what I've seen on the forum every party has on average a single party member with one of those kinds of abilities.

well, yes, they do. But if people do get way to many, it will by crazy. However, since no one really has been, no one will get too upset but the simple patch, but we know it really should be that way just because.

Considering it's just a +1 and it limits what other choices you can take by being a 3 point racial, I actually really like the idea of Grandeur specifically stacking.  There is an opportunity cost to it and I like the idea of things that inspire teamwork (since you don't get your own bonus).

But there's theoretically no ceiling. A party of nine all of whom have +8 to all checks, all the time?

You have bigger problems than a +9 bonus with a 9 player party. =P

*sigh* I know, I know, but that's what we've got...
No I'm not kidding

A nine player party simply sounds like a logistical nightmare in its own right.  I think that a full team with Grandeur should either activate a ton of warning signals for the GM about the players or actually makes tons of sense and DCs simply be adjusted accordingly.  A super sentai team or some sort of shonen or shojo group that is powered by friendship seems like situations this would apply.  From a raw design point, I can see limiting morale bonuses to only stacking from different sources but it might be good to add things like a few situational utilities or a new boon in order to offer other options for boosting a team.  Perhaps it's just my perceptions as a new player but I only seem to see builds that make an individual powerful as opposed to a team though that might just be build styles.

EDIT: You're in a 9 player campaign?  Interesting.

Hm... the way I see it, while you guys might be right about Grandeur specifically not being too bad a deal to stack but with things like instant party as well and frankly even Yee-Haw and The Stare, the no-stacking rule should be put in. Because of that, even if Grandeur's stacking isn't enough of a problem on its own to make the rule, if we add in the general rule anyway it doesn't seem worth it to specifically state that Grandeur *can* stack. Perhaps for now at least, the rule should be added and if a party of 5 or so wants to go with a super-teamwork theme and all take Grandeur, it could be allowed to stack as a houserule if they're DM is okay with it.

Just cap the Grandeur/Party/Whatever bonus at three each.

That's enough so that even in larger parties, it's likely that everybody who WANTS to use the ability (for fairer reasons) will be able to; but knowing that it doesn't stack excessively means that the entire party can't utilize the same trait to just 'excessive bonus' their way through every challenge.

Talking of this "Three limit" Stacking for Moral Bonusi... How does the power of being able to do three uses of Party Everyday stack with eachother when one is level ten?

Destinies Doc wrote:Party Everyday.
1/Day
Preparation time: As long as you want.

You play a kickass tune, empowering and inspiring yourself and all allies in earshot. Everyone who hears the kickass tune gains a +5 bonus to their next skill check, and a +1 morale bonus to skill checks for the rest of the day.

If you were to use it three times at once, would you get a total of +15 to next skill check, and +3 morale bonus. Or do you get +5 to next three checks with a +3 mortal bonus or what?

Party Everyday would at level 10 would just have to specify they're allowed to stack, since otherwise it would be odd.

As for the capping at three, again, while that might be okay balance wise, I don't think it's worth making a rule that they specifically can stack thrice

Then don't make it a "rule" but a "guideline" or a suggestion for GMs?