Some Everypony Talents

The DM gets final say whether or not the Reality is substitutable?

Such a vague power can cause serious problems, since there's no rule that justifies a DM decisions there or ensures the power is balanced. Gray areas like that spark arguments and 'haggling'.

Also, even if they don't, not every DM can be expected to prepare for something so completely unpredictable as that power - who knows what a player might choose to god-mod - or to execute it in such a way that makes it fairly balanced against all the other utility talents.

SilentBelle wrote:

The Warrior of Many Faces wrote:

Philadelphus wrote:

The Warrior of Many Faces wrote:Yay. -Daily
You are a finely tuned cheering machine. You may roll a d20 when an ally rolls a skill check; whatever you roll, apply a bonus to that skill check equal to half the roll (rounded down) unless you roll a Critical Success or a Critical Failure; Crit Successes grant a +20 bonus as a result of simply awesome cheering, while Crit Failures grant a -10 due to less-than-enthusiastic cheering.

That sounds pretty good. How about a re-write for clarity?
~Yay – Daily
You are a finely tuned cheering machine. When rolling to assist an ally with a skill check you may apply half your roll (rounded down) as a bonus to that check. On a roll of 20 you instead add +20; on a 1 you instead add -10.

(Though -10 might be a bit harsh. In my opinion it's bad enough that they just blew a daily power without actually helping their ally. But I'd like to hear what other people think.)

This rewrite looks good for the most part, but I specifically called them Crit Successes and Failures because of Derp. So...

~Yay – Daily
You are a finely tuned cheering machine. When rolling to assist an ally with a skill check you may apply half your roll (rounded down) as a bonus to that check. On a Critical Success you instead add +20; on a Critical Failure you instead add -5.

EDIT: Upon reflection, you have a point on the -10 thing, so I'm lowering it to -5.

Maybe add that you can't also be assisting the ally while using Yay, that's the only thing that I find needs clarification. and -5 seems like a good penalty, it adds keeps a solid risk factor, but it won't be the end of the world.

Edited; Yay now replaces the normal bonus given during an assist.

I figure its about time I contribute something. My Mechanics are shaky, so I padded with Flavor text.


"Plot" Device- 3/day
Something about you has always made ponies attracted to you, and you know how to exploit that. On any selected target of the opposite gender, you may receive one honest answer to any question, have the target perform one task for you- within reason- or assist you in a skill check (+5 bonus), due to their willingness to please you. This may only be used once per target.

8 Posts. Hot damn.

Bronymous wrote:I figure its about time I contribute something. My Mechanics are shaky, so I padded with Flavor text.


"Plot" Device- 3/day
Something about you has always made ponies attracted to you, and you know how to exploit that. On any selected target of the opposite gender, you may receive one honest answer to any question, have the target perform one task for you- within reason- or assist you in a skill check (+5 bonus), due to their willingness to please you. This may only be used once per target.

8 Posts. Hot damn.

It's always great to see more contributions. Now on to my assessment.

Well it certainly is a powerful move
It would probably be fairly balanced if you change it to one use a day. While it may not have the high bonus (+10) of other talents, it's versatility compensates.
Maybe for more flavour, make a persuasion attempt with a +5 bonus, opposed by the target's own perception or persuasion just to have a chance of this move working.

This talent would certainly open any session where you interact with NPCs to a bit more roleplay (silly as the circumstances may be); and I always think that more options for roleplay is a great thing, it also does a great job of giving your character some flavour.

I like the idea, and got a chuckle at the name

What about homo/bi/pan/etc. ponies, though? Perhaps, instead of "opposite gender" it should be "anypony attracted to members of your gender"?

AProcrastinatingWriter wrote:What about homo/bi/pan/etc. ponies, though? Perhaps, instead of "opposite gender" it should be "anypony attracted to members of your gender"?

Well, maybe, but doesn't that imply that the other pony you are trying to use this move on would be homo/bi/pan/etc. ?

I figure that even if your pony has different tastes, the idea is that they are able to exploit the other ponies preferences without reflecting their own personal preference towards gender. That's my take on it anyway.

SilentBelle wrote:

AProcrastinatingWriter wrote:What about homo/bi/pan/etc. ponies, though? Perhaps, instead of "opposite gender" it should be "anypony attracted to members of your gender"?

Well, maybe, but doesn't that imply that the other pony you are trying to use this move on would be homo/bi/pan/etc. ?

I figure that even if your pony has different tastes, the idea is that they are able to exploit the other ponies preferences without reflecting their own personal preference towards gender. That's my take on it anyway.

Though I am sorry for the misunderstanding, to be blunt I'm not talking about one's own pony's personal preferences, I'm speaking of the fact that "Plot" Device currently works on all targets of the opposite gender without regards for personal preference of the target.

For example, a colt using this power on a mare normally attracted to other mares would, under the current power, obtain the bonus despite flagrant disrespect and opposition to that mare's sexuality. This, I think, is somewhat of a problem.

Need it be a sexual attraction?

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:Need it be a sexual attraction?

Well, it should at the very least be a romantic one. After all, you sometimes see Spike waiting hand and foot on Rarity, but does Scootaloo ever do the same for Rainbow Dash?

...I just invalidated my own point, didn't I? Well, I still stick by my assertion, if only for the sake of the original intent of the flavor. Unless it falls into these three tropes...

Jeeze, this is my first post here isn't it? I lurk a bit, but I've never made input, there's always other stuff to do most of the time.

So I was writing up some utility talents for the new races (since only two new races got any) and when I got to zebras I wanted to have some sort of alchemy related talent. Then it occurred to me that perhaps alchemy shouldn't be race specific, although maybe zebras could be a bit better at it than most.

Concoction Creating
Preparation Time: 10 Minutes
You can use the healing skill to brew various potions and elixirs with various effects, from healing ailments to granting strength. The higher the check, the more effective the brew. For example, even if you get a relatively low healing check while brewing a healing potion it will still heal somewhat, just not as much as it would had the check been higher. A low enough skill check may be ineffectual or even have negative effects at the DM's discretion. The more powerful the effect of the potion, the higher the check will need to achieve the desired effect.

Right now what I've drafted is just something along the lines of It's Witchcraft, but for potions instead of magic. The preparation time is obviously meant to be the time required to make the potion, but there's still a few problems I'd like some help working out.

First, the issue of a fire and a cauldron. Should this just be brushed aside as part of the preparation time? Making a fire is easy, but what about a cauldron? Should a cauldron be required? In that case you would really only be able to use this in a town unless you carry around a cauldron, but I kind of want the ability to be a bit more versatile. An idea I had is having the presence of a cauldron give a bonus to the check, but not absolutely necessary. Does that make sense?

Second, ingredients. Pretty similar to the cauldron issue, but a bit harder to find a work around. I guess you could say that an alchemist always carries around lots of ingredients, but that really doesn't cover everything realistically. I was thinking maybe upping the preparation time as a case-by-case basis, to sort of simulate gathering ingredients in the field. Is that good enough though? Shouldn't you have to RP that or something?

Third, does a heal check always make sense? I mean, often brewing stuff is healing, yeah, but is that really the same as a healing check? And not all the brews would necessarily be healing. But then again, what other kind of check might fit? Any better ideas?

Oh, and also it needs a better name. But I can't really think of one that has show related flavor except "Cook Up an Evil Brew". But it's not really supposed to be evil so.. I'm stumped.

... Pinkie's brew. Gotta be the name.

threezeus wrote:Jeeze, this is my first post here isn't it? I lurk a bit, but I've never made input, there's always other stuff to do most of the time.

So I was writing up some utility talents for the new races (since only two new races got any) and when I got to zebras I wanted to have some sort of alchemy related talent. Then it occurred to me that perhaps alchemy shouldn't be race specific, although maybe zebras could be a bit better at it than most.

Concoction Creating
Preparation Time: 10 Minutes
You can use the healing skill to brew various potions and elixirs with various effects, from healing ailments to granting strength. The higher the check, the more effective the brew. For example, even if you get a relatively low healing check while brewing a healing potion it will still heal somewhat, just not as much as it would had the check been higher. A low enough skill check may be ineffectual or even have negative effects at the DM's discretion. The more powerful the effect of the potion, the higher the check will need to achieve the desired effect.

Right now what I've drafted is just something along the lines of It's Witchcraft, but for potions instead of magic. The preparation time is obviously meant to be the time required to make the potion, but there's still a few problems I'd like some help working out.

First, the issue of a fire and a cauldron. Should this just be brushed aside as part of the preparation time? Making a fire is easy, but what about a cauldron? Should a cauldron be required? In that case you would really only be able to use this in a town unless you carry around a cauldron, but I kind of want the ability to be a bit more versatile. An idea I had is having the presence of a cauldron give a bonus to the check, but not absolutely necessary. Does that make sense?

Second, ingredients. Pretty similar to the cauldron issue, but a bit harder to find a work around. I guess you could say that an alchemist always carries around lots of ingredients, but that really doesn't cover everything realistically. I was thinking maybe upping the preparation time as a case-by-case basis, to sort of simulate gathering ingredients in the field. Is that good enough though? Shouldn't you have to RP that or something?

Third, does a heal check always make sense? I mean, often brewing stuff is healing, yeah, but is that really the same as a healing check? And not all the brews would necessarily be healing. But then again, what other kind of check might fit? Any better ideas?

Oh, and also it needs a better name. But I can't really think of one that has show related flavor except "Cook Up an Evil Brew". But it's not really supposed to be evil so.. I'm stumped.

Ah, alchemy, a topic I've been trying to tackle for the last few weeks. I always like to see more views on it.

By the way I'll second the name to be Pinkies Brew. And now for some thoughts on this skill.

First I'll add some input on your third point. I think that heal and mechanics are both skills that could work for this ability, as the understanding of the inner workings of the body, as well as being able to mix potions precisely, are both keys to potion-making.

Now back to the other two issues. You could have it in the description of the talent that it takes 10 minutes to prepare and gather all the ingredients to make a potion, and you get a -5 penalty if you don't have access to the proper tools. And the DM could make a fun skill challenge for your character to search for ingredients if you are out of town.

Now I must ask as to how long are the potions last. If it's indefinitely, then I would suggest adding a magic point cost to the skill. But if it's more like It's Witchcraft then I guess you could have the player set the parameters for what their potion can do (In fact I like this route a lot more). So I'll build up a list of factors for the player to set.

Oh and the effects of the Potions should stay away from Combat, as this is a utility talent.

Determining the DC:
Base DC: 15 (Making any potion that does anything will be higher than a DC:15)

Duration (how long before it expires within the confines of the bottle):
- 1 Hour or less (+0 DC)
- 1 Day (+2 DC)
- Indefinite (+5 DC)

Potency (How long the effect of the potion lasts):
- Instantaneous (+0)
- 1 minute (+2)
- 30 minutes (+5)
- 2 hours (+10)
- 8 hours (+15)

Effect (How powerful of an effect it is):
- Simple (+2) [Examples: a plus 2 bonus to as skill check (Like an antibiotic to give +2 to heal), starting a fire, or freezing a small area.
- Moderate (+5) [Examples: The ability to walk on clouds, +5 to a skill check, Creating a 100 cubic feet of smoke, or a 10 foot radius of blinding light.
- Adept (+10) [Examples: +10 to a skill check, Shared potion of telepathy, or acid that corrodes all but the toughest of materials)
- Master (+15) [Examples: +15 to a skill check or +5 to an attribute, 50 foot teleportation, or flight (Clumsy)]

Using this system you could make these potions as an example:
- Teleportation Potion: Upon drinking this potion, within the next few seconds, the pony can teleport 50 feet, only once. This potion must be consumed within an hour of it's creation or it will offer no effect. Total DC to craft this Potion: 32

- Smoke Bomb: This is a flask of smoke that will engulf an area of 100 cubic feet of thick smoke upon being released. It lingers in the area for 1 minute obstructing the view of the area. You don't have to worry about it ever expiring, just make sure it's container remains tightly sealed. Total DC to craft this Potion: 27

-Potion of Angel Wings: This potion will cause a pair of glowing wings to sprout from the back of the consumer which provide the creature clumsy flight for 8 hours. This potion has no expiry date. Total DC: 65

How's that for a quick rough draft? I'm certain it would need some balancing, but it's just off the top of my head, and how I would have run a player who wanted to make potions in my game.

SilentBelle wrote:

Spoiler:

Thanks for the input. I like the idea of adding mechanics, though that means someone trying to have an apocathary based pony needs to go into both knowledge and precision. I suppose it's still fine. I also like your thoughts on how to address my first two issues, but yeah, it'd need to be carefully balanced.

I didn't really specify duration on purpose, because all those specifications are supposed to be up to the user and at the whim of their skill check. So if someone is trying to make an invisibility potion, the duration would be based on how good the skill check is.


And I definitely approve of Pinkie's Brew as a name.

Well I figured it could be either Mechanics or Healing, whichever is higher.

Pretty much anything on this forum related to alchemy has my attention. I'm glad to lend a hand in any case.

I'm an idiot when it comes to forum posting, quotes and whatnot. So Ima just post my replies here- "Plot" Device

I was hoping for a more than once a day thing with this. My original idea was to make it infinite uses, so long as its once per target, or even just a passive ability that always happens. But I've played enough games to know how broken that is.
That's also why I avoided giving it a Magic cost, because that still limits it to once per day. It's less effective than Honesty, if your asking a question, the bonus isn't much but enough that its worth it over an assist from a teammate, and the task is limited by what's physically possible.

The opposing rolls also crossed my mind- Obviously it wouldn't do for a big bad to be taken down because the nice mare shakes her tail a little and he just gives up. But I learned on 3.5e, and I wasn't sure what a good counter roll would be- no will saves. The DC would also be higher based on certain situations, all at DM discretion.
In the game I'm in, Perception and Persuasion seems to be all we ever do, so I left that out for the sake of some originality.

The joke, obviously, was a mildly sexual one, but in the padding it doesn't say its a physical trait. The Opposite Gender thing was mostly because it was the easiest way to make a set rule without much interpretation. Not many people outright decide to play a gay character, and not many DMs will go to the trouble of deciding whether an NPC is gay, UNLESS they want to shut down a player attempting to use something like this. If its opposite gender, then they at least know if it will be useable against the target beforehand (though if the DM still wants to be a dick, all NPC's from then on could still end up the same gender). And it doesn't have to be sexual in any way, regardless. Just attraction.

So anyway, that was my reasoning. But like I said, I meant this mostly as a proposition to be worked on by those who are more familiar with the mechanics than I am. And if it turns out to be an issue, you can make an equivalent talent that works only on the same gender, so Ponies can pick (but you should probably force them to pick one, not both).

threezeus wrote:
First, the issue of a fire and a cauldron. Should this just be brushed aside as part of the preparation time? Making a fire is easy, but what about a cauldron? Should a cauldron be required? In that case you would really only be able to use this in a town unless you carry around a cauldron, but I kind of want the ability to be a bit more versatile. An idea I had is having the presence of a cauldron give a bonus to the check, but not absolutely necessary. Does that make sense?

If you're just mixing up a single serving of a potion, I don't see why you'd need a whole 30-gallon cauldron. In fact I'd imagine pretty much any vessel could be used, cauldrons are just traditional. An alchemist could probably carry around a small set of equipment for mixing up stuff in the field

threezeus wrote:
Second, ingredients. Pretty similar to the cauldron issue, but a bit harder to find a work around. I guess you could say that an alchemist always carries around lots of ingredients, but that really doesn't cover everything realistically. I was thinking maybe upping the preparation time as a case-by-case basis, to sort of simulate gathering ingredients in the field. Is that good enough though? Shouldn't you have to RP that or something?

Maybe potion making actually only requires a small set of ingredients, and the magic is in the preparation and exact proportions? Another way to do it (although one that would change the talent quite a bit) is to have a list of approved potions (something like this) and assume that the player can carry around the ingredients for those. Although that would get away from its free-form style, and I kind of like the idea.

threezeus wrote:
Third, does a heal check always make sense? I mean, often brewing stuff is healing, yeah, but is that really the same as a healing check? And not all the brews would necessarily be healing. But then again, what other kind of check might fit? Any better ideas?

I would suggest, since it is dealing with magical effects, that Arcana might fit better. It would also provide an extra use for it for non-unicorn races.

Philadelphus wrote:
If you're just mixing up a single serving of a potion, I don't see why you'd need a whole 30-gallon cauldron. In fact I'd imagine pretty much any vessel could be used, cauldrons are just traditional. An alchemist could probably carry around a small set of equipment for mixing up stuff in the field

Good point. An alchemist could just bring along a small set of tools, kind of like the Elder Scrolls system. Makes sense.

Philadelphus wrote:
I would suggest, since it is dealing with magical effects, that Arcana might fit better. It would also provide an extra use for it for non-unicorn races.

I'm somewhat against making it an Arcana check. For one, that would let unicorns who cutie-marked Arcana for the sake of spellcasting instantly good at alchemy as well, which is somewhat overpowered. And yes, there is some magic in alchemy, but the magic doesn't really come from the brewer, it comes from the in components itself.

There's no one skill that covers it well. Healing makes sense for cures and such, but not for potions with other magical properties. Mechanics might work, but it's really not what was originally intended for the skill. I'm leaning towards healing just because it fits the best, but I'm still pretty unsure.

Bronymous wrote:I'm an idiot when it comes to forum posting, quotes and whatnot. So Ima just post my replies here- "Plot" Device

I was hoping for a more than once a day thing with this. My original idea was to make it infinite uses, so long as its once per target, or even just a passive ability that always happens. But I've played enough games to know how broken that is.
That's also why I avoided giving it a Magic cost, because that still limits it to once per day. It's less effective than Honesty, if your asking a question, the bonus isn't much but enough that its worth it over an assist from a teammate, and the task is limited by what's physically possible.

The opposing rolls also crossed my mind- Obviously it wouldn't do for a big bad to be taken down because the nice mare shakes her tail a little and he just gives up. But I learned on 3.5e, and I wasn't sure what a good counter roll would be- no will saves. The DC would also be higher based on certain situations, all at DM discretion.
In the game I'm in, Perception and Persuasion seems to be all we ever do, so I left that out for the sake of some originality.

The joke, obviously, was a mildly sexual one, but in the padding it doesn't say its a physical trait. The Opposite Gender thing was mostly because it was the easiest way to make a set rule without much interpretation. Not many people outright decide to play a gay character, and not many DMs will go to the trouble of deciding whether an NPC is gay, UNLESS they want to shut down a player attempting to use something like this. If its opposite gender, then they at least know if it will be useable against the target beforehand (though if the DM still wants to be a dick, all NPC's from then on could still end up the same gender). And it doesn't have to be sexual in any way, regardless. Just attraction.

So anyway, that was my reasoning. But like I said, I meant this mostly as a proposition to be worked on by those who are more familiar with the mechanics than I am. And if it turns out to be an issue, you can make an equivalent talent that works only on the same gender, so Ponies can pick (but you should probably force them to pick one, not both).

Yeah, I could definitely see the talent, if it was reflavoured, working on both genders. Thanks for clarifying the direction you wanted to take this ability. The trick is, if you want it to be useable many times a day, then you have to limit it in some other way. I'll mull it over a bit before I toss up what I think might work out.

Oh, and on a side note, if the subject that you want discussed is falling behind and getting forgotten about, it's always a great idea to pull it up to the front of the page and back into the spot-light. I know I can only recall so many of the different topics I comment on before I get distracted by a new one. I'll see what I can do to get this one started.

Edit: Alright, I looked it over, and here's my initial tweaking of it

First Impression - At-Will
When you meet anyone for the first time, you may roll a persuasion check vs. the target's perception check. If you beat their roll, you gain a permanent +2 bonus to any skill checks made against the target.

It's pretty simple, but I feel like it could then be reflavoured on a character-by-character basis. Whether the target is flustered when talking to you, or they hang on to your words a bit more, or they have something of a hero-complex for you. It makes for a pretty decent avenue for the DM to make NPCs more memorable.

Well that's my first take on it. I'm not sure if the skill should be allowed to be used each time you meet a person again after an extended period of time or not.

SilentBelle wrote:

Bronymous wrote:I'm an idiot when it comes to forum posting, quotes and whatnot. So Ima just post my replies here- "Plot" Device

I was hoping for a more than once a day thing with this. My original idea was to make it infinite uses, so long as its once per target, or even just a passive ability that always happens. But I've played enough games to know how broken that is.
That's also why I avoided giving it a Magic cost, because that still limits it to once per day. It's less effective than Honesty, if your asking a question, the bonus isn't much but enough that its worth it over an assist from a teammate, and the task is limited by what's physically possible.

The opposing rolls also crossed my mind- Obviously it wouldn't do for a big bad to be taken down because the nice mare shakes her tail a little and he just gives up. But I learned on 3.5e, and I wasn't sure what a good counter roll would be- no will saves. The DC would also be higher based on certain situations, all at DM discretion.
In the game I'm in, Perception and Persuasion seems to be all we ever do, so I left that out for the sake of some originality.

The joke, obviously, was a mildly sexual one, but in the padding it doesn't say its a physical trait. The Opposite Gender thing was mostly because it was the easiest way to make a set rule without much interpretation. Not many people outright decide to play a gay character, and not many DMs will go to the trouble of deciding whether an NPC is gay, UNLESS they want to shut down a player attempting to use something like this. If its opposite gender, then they at least know if it will be useable against the target beforehand (though if the DM still wants to be a dick, all NPC's from then on could still end up the same gender). And it doesn't have to be sexual in any way, regardless. Just attraction.

So anyway, that was my reasoning. But like I said, I meant this mostly as a proposition to be worked on by those who are more familiar with the mechanics than I am. And if it turns out to be an issue, you can make an equivalent talent that works only on the same gender, so Ponies can pick (but you should probably force them to pick one, not both).

Yeah, I could definitely see the talent, if it was reflavoured, working on both genders. Thanks for clarifying the direction you wanted to take this ability. The trick is, if you want it to be useable many times a day, then you have to limit it in some other way. I'll mull it over a bit before I toss up what I think might work out.

Oh, and on a side note, if the subject that you want discussed is falling behind and getting forgotten about, it's always a great idea to pull it up to the front of the page and back into the spot-light. I know I can only recall so many of the different topics I comment on before I get distracted by a new one. I'll see what I can do to get this one started.

Edit: Alright, I looked it over, and here's my initial tweaking of it

First Impression - At-Will
When you meet anyone for the first time, you may roll a persuasion check vs. the target's perception check. If you beat their roll, you gain a permanent +2 bonus to any skill checks made against the target.

It's pretty simple, but I feel like it could then be reflavoured on a character-by-character basis. Whether the target is flustered when talking to you, or they hang on to your words a bit more, or they have something of a hero-complex for you. It makes for a pretty decent avenue for the DM to make NPCs more memorable.

Well that's my first take on it. I'm not sure if the skill should be allowed to be used each time you meet a person again after an extended period of time or not.

It was designed to be a one time use thing. 3 times a day, sure, but they have to be different targets. As for the +2 skill checks, that's a bit divergent from my original intent. It wasn't that they're infatuated with you and you have an advantage over them, it was that they are infatuated with you and they want to do something for you. The choices- honest answer, favor, extra effort assist- were a means of keeping its uses in check while still being applicable. Of course, you can only pick one of these. Anything extra would require actual give and take, maybe a favor in return, or any other way you gain positive rep with a given NPC. I.e., the next time you see them and ask for another favor you get "Well I already did that thing for you before, what do I get in return". Its an advantageous lead in to regular RP dialogue.

Now that I think about it, though, based on my own experiences, there probably wouldn't be many cases of multiple uses in a day, so cutting it to Daily is probably a good idea.

Bronymous wrote:
It was designed to be a one time use thing. 3 times a day, sure, but they have to be different targets. As for the +2 skill checks, that's a bit divergent from my original intent. It wasn't that they're infatuated with you and you have an advantage over them, it was that they are infatuated with you and they want to do something for you. The choices- honest answer, favor, extra effort assist- were a means of keeping its uses in check while still being applicable. Of course, you can only pick one of these. Anything extra would require actual give and take, maybe a favor in return, or any other way you gain positive rep with a given NPC. I.e., the next time you see them and ask for another favor you get "Well I already did that thing for you before, what do I get in return". Its an advantageous lead in to regular RP dialogue.

Now that I think about it, though, based on my own experiences, there probably wouldn't be many cases of multiple uses in a day, so cutting it to Daily is probably a good idea.

Well in that case, I guess First Impression can stay anyway as a neat little idea.

And let's get the daily one going:

Plot Device 1/day
Target: One creature that can see and hear you.
Using you're innate charm to your advantage inducing one of the following effects on a target that can see and hear you:

A) The target's disposition towards you is friendlier as if you had done them a great service. (Ie: if they were about to attack you, then they'd be willing to talk instead, from a neautral stand-point. If they were neutral towards you, then they would be willing to perform a favour for you as though they were your friend. If they were already friendly towards you, then you could ask them for a favour that might run contrary to what they would normally be comfortable doing, though nothing violent or obviously hurtful to the target.

B) If the target is not hostile towards you, the target gives you a truthful answer to one question. (Whether it's blurted out in a flustered conversation, or the target suddenly remembers a secret they've been itching to tell, the DM can spice it up with role-play.)

No creature can be affected by this move twice.


Well, that's what I got. It could probably use some polish and some balancing.

threezeus wrote:

Philadelphus wrote:
I would suggest, since it is dealing with magical effects, that Arcana might fit better. It would also provide an extra use for it for non-unicorn races.

I'm somewhat against making it an Arcana check. For one, that would let unicorns who cutie-marked Arcana for the sake of spellcasting instantly good at alchemy as well, which is somewhat overpowered.

As it currently stands, Arcana seems to have one major use: for unicorns who want to use It's Witchcraft. Other races have little to no reason to ever focus on it at the moment. If alchemy requires Arcana, it would give other races a reason to focus on it. That was my main reason for suggesting it.

Also, if I were creating a unicorn I definitely wouldn't get both alchemy and It's Witchcraft because they're essentially the same thing, just that one is specific to unicorns and one is for everypony. Having them both would be redundant, and take up a precious utility talent slot (unless I misread something, and they're actually not redundant).

threezeus wrote:And yes, there is some magic in alchemy, but the magic doesn't really come from the brewer, it comes from the in components itself.

That's a good point.

threezeus wrote:There's no one skill that covers it well. Healing makes sense for cures and such, but not for potions with other magical properties. Mechanics might work, but it's really not what was originally intended for the skill. I'm leaning towards healing just because it fits the best, but I'm still pretty unsure.

Yeah, have to agree with you on that. Maybe it could require multiple skills, like Arcana and Healing, or Healing and Persuasion, depending on what the effect is supposed to be, and the GM could just set the DC appropriately. ("You want to brew up a love potion? OK, add your Healing and Persuasion bonuses together and roll a d20...")

The bottom line is that I think this sounds like an interesting idea, and I could definitely see it working with just the Healing skill or whatnot. I just thought it would be a great opportunity to give the Arcana skill some actual use for races besides unicorns (and as stated above, I don't think it would really be overpowered for them).

SilentBelle wrote:
Plot Device 1/day
Target: One creature that can see and hear you.
Using you're innate charm to your advantage inducing one of the following effects on a target that can see and hear you:

I still think something Gender related should come into play here. Physical Attraction, and whatnot. Unless he deliberately wants to railroad, I don't think a DM will Rule63 his characters to avoid this. And it adds a level of depth to the RP.

SilentBelle wrote:
A) The target's disposition towards you is friendlier as if you had done them a great service. (Ie: if they were about to attack you, then they'd be willing to talk instead, from a neautral stand-point. If they were neutral towards you, then they would be willing to perform a favour for you as though they were your friend. If they were already friendly towards you, then you could ask them for a favour that might run contrary to what they would normally be comfortable doing, though nothing violent or obviously hurtful to the target.


B) If the target is not hostile towards you, the target gives you a truthful answer to one question. (Whether it's blurted out in a flustered conversation, or the target suddenly remembers a secret they've been itching to tell, the DM can spice it up with role-play.)

No creature can be affected by this move twice.

Mechanics seem pretty solid. The +5 assist could be added in with the favor- if the player asks an NPC, as a favor, to assist him with something. The +5 could be scaled back, if need be, or it could be leveled along with disposition- +1 if neutral, +3 if friendly, +5 if super friendly.

Bronymous wrote:

SilentBelle wrote:
Plot Device 1/day
Target: One creature that can see and hear you.
Using you're innate charm to your advantage inducing one of the following effects on a target that can see and hear you:

I still think something Gender related should come into play here. Physical Attraction, and whatnot. Unless he deliberately wants to railroad, I don't think a DM will Rule63 his characters to avoid this. And it adds a level of depth to the RP.

Well, if you really want physical attraction to be a part of it, then once again we must come back to the original issue of why a homosexual colt is going to be attracted a mare using this ability. I know most PHs are going to be heteronormative regards their creations, but on that rare occasion one does dream up a non-straight character I'd rather not things be like

"I'm using Plot Device!"
"Ah, but that pony is not attracted to you. He's gay, you see."
"Doesn't matter. Plot Device works on all characters of the opposite gender."
"But...he's gay. You can't just say -"
"Yes I can."

I still believing changing the phrasing from "beings of the opposite gender" to "beings attracted to your own gender" could solve the problems here, but I am open to discussion or correction. That's what we're here for, yes?

AProcrastinatingWriter wrote:

"I'm using Plot Device!"
"Ah, but that pony is not attracted to you. He's gay, you see."
"Doesn't matter. Plot Device works on all characters of the opposite gender."
"But...he's gay. You can't just say -"
"Yes I can."

I still believing changing the phrasing from "beings of the opposite gender" to "beings attracted to your own gender" could solve the problems here, but I am open to discussion or correction. That's what we're here for, yes?

Understandable. It is kind of confusing, if we go with the whole ambiguous "its not inherently sexual but it is physical or it could be personal, but how would they know" thing. I said before that if it turns out to be a major concern, then you could have twin talents- one that works on opposite genders, one that works on same genders, and the Player just has to choose one. But that still doesn't address the thing about "they're not attracted to you."

Again, like I said before, It doesn't have to be a romantic/sexual attraction. Roleplay padding would ultimately decide what IS happening, but the point was the other character just really likes you and wants to help you out for some reason inexplicable even to them, and opposite gender was a good way to qualify it in the rules. But if the DM is willing to say, "no that doesn't work, he's gay," just to keep you from using it, then maybe that's his subtle way of telling you "shhh, railroad tracks, follow".

Regardless. Ultimately it can be salvaged in a few ways:
1- Change to anypony who would be attracted to you- but that would force the decision on the DM, as well as add more depth then maybe he was willing to go making his NPC's.
2- Change it to just anypony, ignoring preference or orientation. But that would both lessen its roleplayability and make it more likely to be game breaking.
3- Leave it. The mechanics look to be pretty good, if the only detail left is how it works on who. I'm happy with it, and as long as no one thinks anyone is being discriminated against, the final say probably goes to the Rule makers anyway.

I mostly liked it because I thought the name was pretty clever, so as long as that stays, I'll go with it.