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

[Xel Unknown]

I once had a character... Who I built to have an AoE build and a single target build... And in one combat I took my Single Target Build for an AoE fight... FELT HORRIBLE... Even later on the same campaign it was decided that because spellbook is so cheap, that we'd just do all 8 to make things simpler and avoid events where people feel bad about taking the wrong build for combat...

[A1C Bronymous]

Ok, fine, ignoring all my actual points in favor what you wanted to do from the beginning, what actual purpose does it serve? You can't argue "more fun for everyone" if it isn't more fun for everyone- more complex, more rewarding is more fun to me than having everything laid out for you from the beginning. This is a mix of two things, as I see it- the arbitrary "fix what's not broken" change we've all seen before, in the form of changing Pips to Energy, and welfare mentality. The system isn't getting more accessible, its being dumbed down. It's rewarding those who would rather not put work in to learn all the tricks, and takes away from those who have already done so- or if not subtracting, then at least keeping at the same level- hoping to keep everyone even with varying degrees or work put in.

It's an annoying, trivial change that brings nothing truly beneficial to the system, only beneficial to some players. There is absolutely no upshot that having a self imposed restriction on our own talents that would make is less effective, especially since that means a complete balance shift in the equation: Planned out and specialized being more effective than disjointed and situational, changing to multiple strategies being fully implementable, while specialized would have fewer talents available? It makes no sense. It is literally a piggyback off of the nerfs I disliked earlier. Certain builds being cut down and made less effective than others before, and now those others get a bonus and buff while those nerfed builds remain at their lessened state, albeit with and extra "here also have this talent on hand, even though you probably won't use it."

You can't even make an argument for things like "legacy" rules, keeping the original on hand in case people want to use it. There's no point, everyone will want to play the easier, hand-held 8 talent builds. Just like every other difference of game rules, it just so happens if I want a specific thing, no one else will run a game like that, so if I want it to happen, I have to run it. And then I get to have no fun. This is where my frustration comes from, and this is how things like these small, dumb changes suddenly become big deals.

[Xel Unknown]

What points Bronyoumus? I don't think you've really proven any to be anything other then your personal opinion... How is the system being "dumbed-down" by these actions? Sure I'll agree with the Pips to Energy thing, that was an insane move. But I don't see how allowing everyone to use all of their combat talents be anything but a pure huge buff for basically every character out there? I mean can you explain a non-mechanical reasoning to explain why we have 8 talents and can only pick out five for a combat? And can spend a minor action to swap out one of those five for one of the three we didn't take in? It's been a weird point in a flavor heavy system...

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

Alright, zero compassion and 100% rationality ahead (not necessarily good logic, but an attempt), so proceed with caution.

@Bronymous Since "No one else wants to run a game like that"

And "if the rules change this way then no one will want to play it the other way"

Doesn't that mean that the vast majority of people actually want to play things the way you don't want to play?

We should be making the 96% you don't belong to happy, not the 4% you do belong to.

[A1C Bronymous]

The 96% weren't unhappy with it as it was. It's only now that it could change that people are deciding, "hey yeah, that will definitely be better". So it's going from 100% perfectly happy to 96% perfectly happy, and the 4% can deal.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

Yes, but now the 96% will be unhappy if this doesn't happen, made to "deal".

Besides, should it matter? If we can make the game better for a vast majority of people (even if they hadn't realized what they'd want until they heard about it), shouldn't we, even if the teensy minority are made upset?

[A1C Bronymous]

I sincerely doubt you would have that mindset if you were the one losing out.

It's a dumb thing to do. The game will not improve, the system will not benefit. It will be plain and easy for new kids, and unrewarding to veterans. That's just how I think it's going to be. So go for it. Break what works instead of fixing what doesn't. It's fine, that's the path this game is obviously going to have to take.

[Lapis-Lazily]

Uhm, most people arguing against you are veterans of the system as well, and they think the change is good, so your argument that this makes the system worse for those who already play it has no base. All you're really saying is that you don't like the changes, so nobody should be able to enjoy them.

[Xel Unknown]

Personally also hoping to see the Crits getting balanced in this whole reworking thing....

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

@Lapis-Lazily: Indeed.

In addition, consider this: if a person is given options between "do you want things to stay the same" and "do you want things to change", and they choose the second one, were the really "happy" when things hadn't changed, or did they simply think there was no choice to be had?

As a side note,

I sincerely doubt you would have that mindset if you were the one losing out.

I disagree, but that's actually not important. What matters is whether or not what I said was correct.

Crit balancing would probably be nice.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Crit-balancing was the main reason for the combat system revamp in the first place. It was the very first thing we worked on.

[Crystalite]

What is one to do when you aren't really sure what talent is best? I think we need a good "fill-in-the-blank-wait-and-see" talent. Flavor-wise, this would also be good for amnesia (the default flavor) and small children (who would logically not yet have as many talents.)

New Utility Talent:

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

That's a neat idea, though it seems like it'd kinda be strictly-better than any other talent out there (since you could always trade it out for one of those talents). You're also supposed to be able to completely rework your character between sessions - so long as the flavor doesn't change without a roleplaying reason and you don't do it just to min/max for specific situations (like taking fireborn just because you're about to go into a volcano next session). This lets people try out anything they like if they aren't sure yet or if they're getting bored of the same old stuff.

[A1C Bronymous]

You're also supposed to be able to completely rework your character between sessions.

Play by post doesn't have "sessions" though. In that case, it's either continuous, with no swapping, or it's up to the DM to decide when swapping would be allowed. For example I mark off significant sections, declaring them as "sessions", even though the play is continuous. i also allow swapping if a major update or expansion is released.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

That's a very good way to handle it.

[conantheghost]

New Utility Talent:

I would want to add this to the game, but with two serious nerfs.
1. Give it a long preparation time, say, 10 minutes? It takes you time to remember properly how to do something.
2. You can only take it once. Having an entirely blank slate would't be all that good, and can easily crack a game wide open at the start, but kill you later when you get locked in.

As for changing Talents between session, the point of this talent would be to give a mid-session boost along the lines of Magic, but more permanent flavor-wise and mechanics-wise. It could also be good from an RPing perspective, letting a big change occur quickly and without being tied to leveling. If they could do this all the time it would be broken, but once, ever, on a character would not hurt.

Also, for the duration that they haven't used the talent, it would just be an empty slot. They wouldn't have the verstility of a character without the talent, and would have to wiegh carefully whether or not to burn it for a new talent.... With that in mind, making the prep time short(a minute, or possibly less) might work after all.

[A1C Bronymous]

But it would also be combinable with certain things that alter the amount of talents you get over time. For instance, by definition this is able to be comboed with Personal project, because it is an active effect instead of a passive. But then it is replaced, and is either limited in the respect that it must be replaced by an active effect, or it breaks open. Then there's Changeling's trickery. Using that, a character may end up with multiple cases of extra UTs by way of Racials. If this were selected, you would then have to determine and rule if, when you transform and use this talent, does the replacing talent stay for the rest of the game? Or does it reset to I Remember Now every time you change back?

It's intention of being 1/game makes it volatile and hard to rule in these respects.

[ZamuelNow]

For example I mark off significant sections, declaring them as "sessions", even though the play is continuous. i also allow swapping if a major update or expansion is released.

That's how I handle it as well. The GM guide could stand to have a section with suggestions on how to handle tabletop, Skype, and play by post differently.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Noted! Thanks for pointing it out.

[A1C Bronymous]

This is a minor game changing question/suggestion. When it comes to Items, and Weapons specifically, it seems a little odd that the talents they offer are primarily 1/battle. I know flavoring accounts for stuff, but the idea that you can only use a weapon once in a fight is just weird. Moreover, it's only the lower level gear that seems affected by this. The highest level weapon, the Vorpal Sword, is not limited in its use, and has easily the highest damage output/pip cost ratio in the game. And at only 7 pips, it is not at all difficult to pull it off every other turn, using only traits and high pip gain moves inbetween. As evidenced in playtesting (see Abominable Antagonist for Xel's character that has used it 4 times in 7 turns or so), it is extremely powerful, extremely efficient, easy to use, easy to pay for.

But this isn't about the Vorpal Sword. That pricetag is outrageous and almost enough to deter thoughts of actually using it, and it's fine as is. This is about the other weapons, that have much, MUCH less useful effects over time, and whose usefulness/costs are disrupted by the 1/battle or so limits. Why aren't, or shouldn't, the other weapons be allowed to be used as often as Vorpal Sword, if at least for a slightly bumped up cost?

[Xel Unknown]

I agree... Would love to see more free talent items... Or even some items just getting upgraded to that. Cause that is a really odd feature of the system. Sometimes it's really cool. But an odd quirk none the less... Then again, I personally just see the items as more a mechanics to be flavored however you with that GM allows you to do.

[ZamuelNow]

I can see some making sense as limited use (potions and ammo weapons, low grade weapons that break, anything rolled off of initiative) but there seems to be far too many that are limited. And I'll admit that I never realized it was so level skewed. More variety could setup more varied builds.

[Fury of the Tempest]

I have to throw my agreement in here. More non-limited weapons would be awesome. I mean, I personally consider Spellblade to be the best weapon specifically because it can used an infinite amount of times.

And on another note... I wouldn't mind too much if we just go with 'you can use 8 combat talent', while Spellbook and Dangerously Talented give you a side-pool, which you can switch talents in and out of for a minor action. Say... Spellbook giving you a 2-talent pool, and Dangerously Talented giving you a 5 talent pool? Still gives uses of Spellbook a wider range of combat talents to use than their allies.

[Zarhon]

From a flavor standpoint, Spellblade, Oversized Sword, Vorpal Blade are all weapons that actually *act* as weapons and provide a constant benefit or combat options from just being equipped. The others act like wands with charges, even for things that don't make any sense (defensive blade, ritual knife, sword-chucks...). They're weapons, not toys that get broken by toddlers, and should provide offensive options or benefits for as long as they're equipped, not just for when they used. A few of the armors also have this - Armor of Unholy Vengeance, Wizard's Robes, and such.

From a mechanics standpoint:

Spoiler:

I'd like to ask the combat devs: What's the math behind x/battle or x/day weaponry (or armors, since they occupy a single limited slot, which in itself has a value of sorts) cost calculations, in comparison to "use as many times you want" weapons? How much gold, out of what you invested for an effect, is "lost" when a 1/day option is used up, or when it is yet to be used? When do you "profit", and when do you don't, compared to a weapon without limits on uses?

[A1C Bronymous]

I didn't bring up armors before, because I always figured they should be passive bonuses over activated effects anyway- but that's a personal preference held over from vidja games. If they DO have activated effects, 1/battle probably makes more sense for armor. Trinkets should remain a mix of both, and should also make up the "consumables" you mentioned. Minor x/battles that can stack within one trinket slot, for example.

[Sponsored content]