Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

[Zarhon]

Well the way I see it, most of Crushing Blow's problems could indeed be fixed by making it activate only once per round.

That way you can't continue an infinite combo out of the d12 Crushing Blow crits (unless the special move triggered itself makes a crit, which for some like the Be Prepared one is an intended mechanic), but there's still a small, 1/12 chance of having the crushing blow damage cause the all-important d12 crit, but only once, so it can't snowball out of proportion and chain forever, or trigger itself for even more damage.

Nerfing its damage or roll die would probably be a bad idea - the main reason most people take it is to get a chance to roll the d12 special specifically, which for many builds is hard to do (due to the inherent cost and 'rarity' of d12 rolls in abilities) and more than a few builds rely on the d12 specials to perform optimally, e.g. Wild Lighting ("free move" builds), Be Prepared ("long chain of crits" or the Assassin's Resolve ("instakill boss") special move builds.

One must also consider that this is a trait that, depending on one's luck or build (few crit rollers), may not trigger at all, and provides no other benefits than a single instance of damage (which in itself also relies on luck to see how effective it is). If it can't give a chance for more crits, or does measly damage, or does nothing at all in any combat due to misfortune... Is it worth taking over other traits?

It's a talent that can be both useless or overpowered, depending solely on how lucky you are and/or how much you focus on crits. My experiences with it were lucky (and fairly awesome/fun, something I'm sure anyone can agree to be an important factor of one's combat) and in a few cases, a lifesaver. Others might find it to have done a minor / inconsequential effect at best.

1d12+1d6 damage to crushing blow sounds kinda awesome, though at the same time seems a bit OP as well - it may not be able to snowball into infinity anymore, but it becomes a lot more reliable and deadly in its damage (and the "damage spike" is one of the two problems described, I believe).

[Kindulas]

Why do those racial/enchantments still have the same name, by the way? They don't do the same thing (not that they ever did), and it's just confusing (especially if both are used by the same person, which is actually expectable given the synergy). Maybe rename that enchantment to something like:

Goat's Hooves
Hookshot
Power Grip
Climber's Contrivance

Good point, just like how we need to change the name on Wild Lightning, the Combat Talent

[Kindulas]

Problem is, crit builds are overpowered period. If you can activate CB so much as twice a battle, it's properly paid for. Once per round without a damage buff is appropriate or still overpowered for crit builds. Critfisher itself remains to be a problem too. Well, special moves remain a problem.

[Cardbo]

These are non-combat items that I'd like to see.  However, I haven't really seen any official non-combat items, so I don't know where to place them.

Magical Keys - [cost ???] - 1/Day

"Magic Keys!  They unlock any door!  Wouldst thou like to purchase one?"

Magical Keys, sometimes called Anti-matter Keys, will open any door or lock, but are quite fragile and can't take much handling.

Skeleton Keys - [cost ???] - 3/Day
Skeleton Keys are like Magical Keys, but much sturdier.

[Kindulas]

These are non-combat items that I'd like to see.  However, I haven't really seen any official non-combat items, so I don't know where to place them.

Magical Keys - [cost ???] - 1/Day

"Magic Keys!  They unlock any door!  Wouldst thou like to purchase one?"

Magical Keys, sometimes called Anti-matter Keys, will open any door or lock, but are quite fragile and can't take much handling.

Skeleton Keys - [cost ???] - 3/Day
Skeleton Keys are like Magical Keys, but much sturdier.

Alas, it is a nessecary evil that because Non-combat items break our "don't mix combat/non-combat elements" rule, they cannot exist as a purchasable item in the core rules of the system

[sunbeam]

Maybe the best fix here (aside from some genius coming up with a good explanation and metric for non-combat gold not mixing with combat gold) is to put a small note in the treasure trove telling DMs that if they want to give their players items that open doors or teleport the players long distances or disguise them at will, then they should just make them separately and give them to the players as part of a treasure horde. Explain, as simply as possible, that the gold used here is not the actual budget of an adventurer, but the amount of money a game character can spend improving their combat skills. If they want cool items out of combat, give those items to them a separate way.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

That actually is the current plan, once we get all the other stuff done - to provide DMs with a manual full of cool toys they can give players in treasure hoards.

[ZamuelNow]

Perhaps Combat Gold shouldn't be called gold. It's an automatic increase regardless of plot so it's really a more overt point system than currency (though there are ways to treat it as currency in a campaign).

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Where do people get the idea that gold is an automatic increase regardless of plot? It's just a guideline for where we expect players to be, like all the other systems out there. What the players actually loot is what determines their gold in my campaigns - and some of my parties have spent weeks with barely half the gold of their level while others have brilliantly brokered deals and looted dragon hoards to get more than level 10 gold while they were still level 6 or 7.

[Philadelphus]

Where do people get the idea that gold is an automatic increase regardless of plot? It's just a guideline for where we expect players to be, like all the other systems out there.

Well, technically, the other systems are not guidelines. It's not a "suggestion" that you get traits at levels 2 & 3 – you just get them. Same with utility talents, destinies, boons...all the other level-up systems tell you precisely what you get when you level up, and in my experience most of the people I've played with have simply applied the same mindset to gold. ("You hit level 2, pick a trait and here's a thousand gold to spend.")

(Unless you meant "systems" as in "other RPG game systems", in which case the gist of my point still applies: all the other level-up features in Pony are strictly prescribed, so many/most people make the mental connection that gold must be too.)

What the players actually loot is what determines their gold in my campaigns - and some of my parties have spent weeks with barely half the gold of their level while others have brilliantly brokered deals and looted dragon hoards to get more than level 10 gold while they were still level 6 or 7.

I'm glad you mentioned this, however, because I'm contemplating running a campaign that would work in such a manner, but was worried that it would deviate too far from the system or be unfun for people used to a steady progression of gold. I'm definitely more interested in trying it now that you brought it up.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

1) Good points. I was talking about other systems like other RPG games - which all handle gold as how much treasure the system expects players to have but leaves that up to how the campaign goes.

2) I definitely recommend giving the 'players actually earn their gold' way of doing things a try. It gives the players added motivation to seek out treasure and their actions/ideas can have a tangible impact on their character's power. After all, if players figure out a great way to steal the dragon's treasure or suffer a crippling robbery - it's a lot more fun to let them live with their actions by having a great deal more or less gold than is normal for their level. Just try to make sure they get a chance to have the shoe on the other foot too (if they've been below-level in gold for a while, it's nice to give them a chance to be drastically above-level in gold too; but still give them a chance to earn it of course).

[ZamuelNow]

I was going to say what Philadelphus did about the system sounding like a rule rather than a guideline. It's a bit of a toss up. I can see the reason for having more overt loot. However, my primary tabletop point of reference is from superheroes where gear is inclusive by default or gained through key plot aspects and that seems more in line with a MLP setting and the system itself. Less of the infamous fantasy game arguing and fighting over loot and more of simply having characters be awesome. There's also the issue of keeping the idea of social skills and combat separate since keeping gold abstract means you've got reward options for doing well out of combat, especially if it's not a standard dungeon crawl for the combat. Both systems have their pluses and minuses and it's a valid point to see which is better per group.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I avoid the loot-squabbles by having players split gold equally by default. It's only when I want a little friction, such as to challenge the bonds of harmony in the party, that I throw a powerful item that can't be shared at the group.

It's absolutely fine to get better gear automatically on leveling up. However, it's not a rule of the system that you have to.

[Dusk Raven]

That does sort of throw a wrench into cases where the items aren't physical items per se but actual parts of the character, like skills or innate qualities. Or the Training Certificate. I suppose gold going into such things can be... handled by the player and GM. It's not a huge problem, but I tend to treat items as customizable abilities rather than actual items.

[A1C Bronymous]

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this already, but.

I was thinking about how many effective combat builds, by virtue of maximizing potential in a specific role, do not or cannot afford the player offensive capability. This is rather limiting: Where in a full party, it would be fine, when the party splits, and especially one on one situations, this is extremely limited; both for the party, for strategy, and the DM for planning and developing encounters.

So, the question (to which I know the answer) is what if everyone, in addition to their 8 combat talents, also had a default attack? It would have no other benefit except to give designated healers, tanks etc., something to fight with in a one on one situation. The obvious choice would be, in talent format, [0]- Standard Attack, do X damage. Would something like that be usable, or by design perspective is it at the point where there are enough combat talent slots and enough neutral or +pip talents that everyone should be able to have something?

[Xel Unknown]

Mmm... I think having a spare combat talent or two that can only be used while one is on a one or two party side could be fun for the system. Or at least something worth mulling over in it's own topic.

[conantheghost]

I agree with Xel. Buuut...hmm

In D&D 3.5 all characters got were abilities directly related to their jobs. A fighter always hit things, a caster always cast things, etc. But for casters, at least, this sometimes became a problem. If none of your spells were useful at that point, you were saving for an upcoming battle, or - Luna forbid - you ran out of spells, you were stuck sitting behind the lines waiting for the fighter to do his job the whole battle.

Along comes Pathfinder, and they added weak attack powers or additional support powers that didn't tie in to casting in the least. Now casters are never just sitting around doing nothing when they can't, for whatever reason, cast.

On that logic alone, making a [0] Do X damage standard that all players get for free is not a bad thing in the least. It shouldn't do anything to the attack builds at all(After all, they'll be bouncing around a lot stronger attacks and effects) and the Support builds will be able to get stuff done when othewrise useless without sacrificing their build.

[Xel Unknown]

Like I said, this is a topic that'd worrent it's own topic for such an update to combat system. And have it be more or less minor listing of possible talents to make use of the smaller combat party or being on one's on.

[Fury of the Tempest]

Its also why everyone got at will powers in 4E.

Really, (0) Do 1d8 damage to target enemy won't hurt at all.

[Zarhon]

The weird thing about Pony Tales combat is that there is pretty much nothing preventing you from making a (mechanics-wise) terrible/useless/unwinnable-with combat spec, whether by intention or accident (a.k.a. new players). You can bring along a build without any pip boosters, for example, and end up unable to do anything once you ran out of your starting pips (there's pretty much only a single line in the handbook suggesting you shouldn't do this). If there's a "default "[0] talent, why not make a "default", "skip a standard action" [+] talent as well (we can already fizzle pip boosters to achieve this anyway).

For instance:

[+3] Patience - Standard utility
Do nothing for this standard action.

[Fury of the Tempest]

I guess, if you really want. Personally I think a free, default attack will do.

[A1C Bronymous]

Yeah, you could do that. Mine was meant for completed builds more than noob builds (or both, really), since noob builds will only have to endure one encounter before they learn they need pip builders and (presumably with help) restructure. Veteran completed builds of designated roles are (mostly) maximized, and mine is only meant to help them do something, but not help them out in any other way -like give them pips.

Plus there should be plenty of time before a combat encounter for someone, be it DM or Party Member, to see that they have no pip building moves and point it out.

[SparkImpulse]

I'm with Zarhon, although as with his comment about the single line in the manual about pip boosters, I'd actually like to see the manual changed a bit more like this:

In addition to the five talents you bring into each combat encounter, you may assume you have a sixth, invisible talent:

[+3] pick you nose (standard utility)
Stand by and watch the feathers fly

- - -

But yes, a weak [0] 1d6+level "invisible talent" would be a very useful addition, and reminiscent of DnD3.5's "reserve feats" although those required you to hold a spell in reserve, thus the name.

[ZamuelNow]

In a weird place on this. I think it should be a bigger concern for newcomers than veterans because an optimized build is...an optimized build. There's a tradeoff to specialization versus versatility. I won't complain if it gets added, just commenting.

[A1C Bronymous]

Yeah but if you specialize super well and then are put in a situation where that specialization isn't viable, you need to be able to do something. Or you could just run away, but who does that?

[Sponsored content]