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

[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?

[Ramsus]

I don't see the issue with everyone having something like:
[0] Slash - Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 to target creature.

Just so that they are sure to have some kind of attack, as frankly a lot of builds you can make are hindered in spending any combat talent slots on an attack, add in a few more that aren't helped by an attack that deals damage.

It's basically the same as D&D's basic melee/ranged attacks.

[ZamuelNow]

@Bronymous: But that's the crux of the specialized versus versatile argument.  Be awesome at one thing and little use in others or be less good in specific areas while being able to do multiple things.  It's a specific way to build and both have strengths and weaknesses.

But as said, a generic 1d6 doesn't seem bad in the grand scheme of things.

[Zarhon]

I don't see the issue with everyone having something like:
[0] Slash - Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 to target creature.

Just so that they are sure to have some kind of attack, as frankly a lot of builds you can make are hindered in spending any combat talent slots on an attack, add in a few more that aren't helped by an attack that deals damage.

It's basically the same as D&D's basic melee/ranged attacks.

I can testify to this - one of my combat builds uses the "oversized sword" as its main "reliably used" attack, due to it always being equipped and due to the build having pip boosters that aren't attacks. I'd have a different weapon if I had room for a similar decent/reliable attack among my other abilities.

When you build your combat spec, you are limited by:
- Taking 5/8 of what you have into combat (unless you take a spellbook, which gimps you as far as weapon combat items go).
- Taking at least 1-2 pip boosters (so you are left with 3-4 talents you can bring into combat).
- Taking at least one option that lets you deal damage (so you can actually win on your own). Ideally, you'd add a single target and/or multiple target attack to cover all bases. Thats leaves you with 2-3 more to pick for the rest of the build.
- The build needs to be in some way effective in its job (healing/damage dealing/tanking), which may require more than one talent. Builds that rely on combos especially, if your pip booster and attack choices aren't fit for the rest of the build. You can't rely on traits since those aren't readily available from lvl1, and combat items are costly.
- The build, unless it wants to be easily shut down, finally needs some defensive options, or methods of preventing any "glaring weakness" being exploited and bringing you down. Whether this is possible without making yourself ineffective is another matter.

If you're given a "invisible attack" or "invisible pip booster" (or possibly, a default attack pip booster?), you free up slots for every build to choose talents more fitting their characters (rather than being "required by default" to win) and allow for combos with such (assuming the "default attack" allows combos with such, of course).

Maybe if we modify the "slash" into something like this:

[+1] Tackle -Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 damage to target creature.

It's weaker than similar talents and grants no crits or other benefits, but it can still be useful for, say, a build that uses a spellblade, or has "where it hurts" or similar combos, or simply needs to do damage in an emergency (e.g. vs minions), and ensures you have an option to gain pips. If one doesn't want to attack but just wants the pip, they can fizzle it. If they want a stronger attack to work with, there are such options in the handbook, but they need to use a "combat talent" slot for it.

[A1C Bronymous]

Those were pretty much my thoughts and reasoning as well.

But that's the crux of the specialized versus versatile argument. Be awesome at one thing and little use in others or be less good in specific areas while being able to do multiple things.

Of course it is, but "little use" is still better than "no use", and with this everyone can be of at least "little use" in offensive capability, which is the one single thing absolutely required in some form to win a combat encounter.

Unless enemy mook uses Selfdestruct, but that happens very rarely in PT.

[sunbeam]

If Inspiring Presence requires you to choose two allies, what happens if you only have one ally? Shouldn't it be 'up to two allies'? I'm pretty sure this still wouldn't activate Inspiring Word (which I think you did on purpose, despite my dear wishes to abuse that trait to high heaven...).

[Sponsored content]