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

Fury of the Tempest Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:19 pm

Kindulas wrote:Glissa, the Traitor being a 3/3 first-strike deathtouch for 3 is often overlooked due to her special ability being lackluster (MtG references)

... A 3/3, First Strike and DEATH TOUCH for a 3 drop?

That... is awesome.

ZamuelNow Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:27 pm

Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.

What is the design stance on passive stat buffs anyways? That affects a number of suggestion possibilities along with helping better formulate questions about things already in the system.

**Paper Shadow** Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:37 am

Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.

It's called Freaky Knowledge...

Fury of the Tempest Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:38 am

Paper Shadow wrote:
Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.
It's called Freaky Knowledge...

Freaky Knowledge in intimidation? I don't think that's specific enough.

**Paper Shadow** Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:47 am

Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Paper Shadow wrote:
Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.
It's called Freaky Knowledge...

Freaky Knowledge in intimidation? I don't think that's specific enough.

Perhaps, but unless the devs state that it isn't, then it's fair game. That's what the current meta for FK is nowadays anyway: take it in something like Lies, Tells, Seduction, Intimidation, .etc and enjoy the +5 bonus far more than other subjects would give...

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:31 pm

Paper Shadow wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Paper Shadow wrote:
Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.
It's called Freaky Knowledge...

Freaky Knowledge in intimidation? I don't think that's specific enough.
Perhaps, but unless the devs state that it isn't, then it's fair game. That's what the current meta for FK is nowadays anyway: take it in something like Lies, Tells, Seduction, Intimidation, .etc and enjoy the +5 bonus far more than other subjects would give...

No, that's far to broad for the examples given. The examples are very specific things like 'sewing' - and if you acknowledge that it's a broader bonus than the other subjects would give then you don't need a Dev to tell you that category is too broad.

ZamuelNow Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:35 pm

I have seen people do it though. Still doesn't answer how +5 Intimidation is too much yet Emphatic exists.

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:39 pm

The people doing that are wrong.

As for Empathic, from what I understand (wasn't involved in it myself) the developers had a much narrower interpretation of what sensing feelings could mean compared to the general interpretation of the forums. They seem to have been looking at it like, "Yeah, you're very good at telling when someone's sad or happy or angry". Not using it as a Lie to Me style micro-detector. In short, it was supposed to be a more flavorful thing of telling you usually-useless information about general emotions. That isn't how it reads though.

I'm confident that Empathic isn't going to continue to exist in its current form.

**Kindulas** Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:50 pm

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:The people doing that are wrong.

As for Empathic, from what I understand (wasn't involved in it myself) the developers had a much narrower interpretation of what sensing feelings could mean compared to the general interpretation of the forums. They seem to have been looking at it like, "Yeah, you're very good at telling when someone's sad or happy or angry". Not using it as a Lie to Me style micro-detector. In short, it was supposed to be a more flavorful thing of telling you usually-useless information about general emotions. That isn't how it reads though.

I'm confident that Empathic isn't going to continue to exist in its current form.

That's a pretty accurate description of why empathy is the way it is, but really the information is useful far more often than it should be as is. Looking at Sharp Eyes it should probably be a +5 bonus instead

tygerburningbright Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:54 pm

pardon me for cutting in but in the past have you not stated that we should be moving away from things that just give straight bonuses?

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:55 pm

Or could be a Sunderblade-like magic talent and more broadly applicable. But really, I don't think *anyone* really needs empathy for a specific race. And people are going to play with a +5 bonus to sensing feelings to their advantage either way in a manner that annoys DMs.

EDIT - Tyger is quite correct.

**Kindulas** Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:59 pm

>.> fair point...
but like
the flavor...

tygerburningbright Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:01 pm

Flavor is meaningless in a mechanical discussion because everything is re-favorable.

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:07 pm

Yes and no. It's meaningless to discuss *how* you might, for example, breathe underwater. However, if a race needs the *ability* to breathe underwater for flavor purposes - that needs to be addressed.

ZamuelNow Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:09 pm

I'm thinking it might be good to remove the numeric buff altogether, have it auto-succeed, yet give the user mild feedback since they are so in touch with others. That, or give it a lower numeric buff but limit the number of times per day.

**Kindulas** Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:09 pm

Well, not exactly. The origin of an effect is reflavorable, but the effect itself is not, and can carry a flavor all its own. Like the ability to sense emotions.
Noe, the added flavor option may not be able to justify a mechanically problematic talent, sure, but that's not quite the same.

Seem I've been ninja'd

sunbeam Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:34 pm

Paper Shadow wrote:
Kindulas wrote:We can't make that at-will, that would be like a +5 to intimidate, period - that's insane.
It's called Freaky Knowledge...

The problem with this passive boost as I remember it isn't that people are grabbing a passive +5 to intimidation and the like (though apparently that is an issue as well), but rather that they can now grab TWO passive +5 bonuses to intimidation, outside of the skill itself. This has ramifications for recommended/plausible DCs and the like.

**Philadelphus** Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:18 pm

ZamuelNow wrote:I'm thinking it might be good to remove the numeric buff altogether, have it auto-succeed, yet give the user mild feedback since they are so in touch with others. That, or give it a lower numeric buff but limit the number of times per day.

It could also have a non-zero prep time so you can't just walk into a room and instantly use it on everyone there. Say, 30 seconds or so: "You spend a little time studying So-and-So, and you can tell that she is feeling..."

**Pingcode** Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:31 pm

Could we make Freaky Knowledge a competence bonus or something? That way we can attach 'freaky knowledge' bonuses to abilities to things without having to work around compounding FK and misc bonuses.

ZamuelNow Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:05 pm

Pingcode wrote:Could we make Freaky Knowledge a competence bonus or something? That way we can attach 'freaky knowledge' bonuses to abilities to things without having to work around compounding FK and misc bonuses.

Not entirely sure of the question here. I know I personally prefer the FK choice be super specific but allow all aspects of it be applicable. Take the example of sewing. It's a specific skill but in theory I as a GM feel it should apply to the act of sewing something (Mechanics), noticing a type of stitching (Perception), and explaining how to do a sewing technique (Persuasion). There's some parts of the system that seem to have a bit of a letter of the law vs intent of the law problem.

**Stairc -Dan Felder** Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:09 pm

That's precisely how it's supposed to work. Any check that involves that area.

**Pingcode** Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:20 pm

ZamuelNow wrote:
Pingcode wrote:Could we make Freaky Knowledge a competence bonus or something? That way we can attach 'freaky knowledge' bonuses to abilities to things without having to work around compounding FK and misc bonuses.
Not entirely sure of the question here. I know I personally prefer the FK choice be super specific but allow all aspects of it be applicable. Take the example of sewing. It's a specific skill but in theory I as a GM feel it should apply to the act of sewing something (Mechanics), noticing a type of stitching (Perception), and explaining how to do a sewing technique (Persuasion). There's some parts of the system that seem to have a bit of a letter of the law vs intent of the law problem.

No, no, more like in the DnD jargon sense of a 'Competence Bonus'

So if you have FK: Balloons, it would provide a +5 Competence Bonus to all checks involving balloons. If you then make the racial Master Balloonists(1) which gives the ability to own a balloon and a +5 Competence Bonus to ballooning checks, you wouldn't need to try and balance to a potential +10 bonus to Ballooning on top of the skill checks - the two +5 bonuses would be under the same heading, so you'd only have the one +5 to Ballooning to contend with.

Same way the extra-strength aid another bonuses are all Morale bonuses to keep them from compounding too much.

**Kindulas** Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:23 pm

Well... actually being Morale bonuses doesn't mean anything. We never actually implemented a rule saying they don't stack, I think we just added the word for flavor clarification and in case we did want to add that rule

ZamuelNow Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:33 pm

I thought it had been decided that morale bonuses stack but only from different utilities/racials? Thus something like Grandeur doesn't get crazy in an all dragon party but players aren't screwed out of wholly different abilities with different setups.

**Kindulas** Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:37 pm

ZamuelNow wrote:I thought it had been decided that morale bonuses stack but only from different utilities/racials? Thus something like Grandeur doesn't get crazy in an all dragon party but players aren't screwed out of wholly different abilities with different setups.

Yes, we do keep bonuses from the same talent from stacking, but "morale" isn't part of it.

Sponsored content