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

[ZamuelNow]

I need to find them since I'm pretty sure it's been suggested before but the main things Caltrops needs are the ability to also use it on an ally (serves alternate tanking concepts via deterrent) and changing it to an attack (more options for the damage it does).

[Xel Unknown]

Personally I don't think Caltraps needs to be turned into attack. If it still works under the whole you or target ally phrasing that could work as a full utility and in my opinion should. (cause it's neat to have sometimes damage or loss of life as I argue it should use) But if it works under like when the enemy next attack they get damage or loss of life, then that version could be labeled an attack.

I in fact suggest it might be changed into something like this:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Choose One:
a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally suffers 2d6 loss of life
b) Target enemy will suffer 2d4 loss of life when it makes it's next attack.

Or we do something like this with two moves one attack version one utility:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally suffers 2d6 loss of life

[-1] Pain Spikes - Minor Attack
Target enemy suffers 2d4 loss of life when it makes it's next attack.

[ZamuelNow]

I think making it an attack is more needed than flat raising the damage. As a -1 minor, it shouldn't do a ton of damage on it's own, especially when noted that there is a flat 2 damage minor.

[Xel Unknown]

Personally I like catraps to be still mechanically working as a type of either reaction/innturpt type of mechanics build to trigger for a future attack (or attacks) X.... Or something like that.

[Philadelphus]

Well, let me weigh in on the Caltrops discussion here. I'm not sure that it makes much sense to make it an Attack rather than a Utility, due to not being a direct attack. Making it an attack would make it affected by things like Blindness and Weakened, which doesn't make much sense. That said, what are the issues people have brought up?

1. Resist on an enemy drastically reduces the usefulness of the deterrent.
   
2. The move can't be used to protect allies, nor to target specific enemies.
   

The suggestion to use life-loss instead of damage works to make it more useful against Resist, and I think we can extend it to allies pretty easily:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Choose one:
a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life
b) Until the end of your next turn, any time target enemy makes an attack it loses 1d6 life.

This should make it a bit more useful by piercing Resistance and being useful for protecting allies, while not dealing too much damage for a [-1] minor. It could also be useful on enemies that attack multiple times per turn. Thoughts?

[ZamuelNow]

Sounds fair.

[Paper Shadow]

a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life

Just so I know your intention, is it "any creature that attacks you or target ally" or "any creature that attacks (please select either you or target ally)"? The current wording is slightly ambiguous...

[Xel Unknown]

I believe the used wording for things that only are usable on either yourself or allies is "you or target ally" so it means to pick one. It has been used about 6 other times in the combat system... I'd guess mabye adding clarifier "a" into the pharse could make it clearer like "you or a target ally" is clearly only useable for only ONE player at a time.

[Philadelphus]

a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life

Just so I know your intention, is it "any creature that attacks you or target ally" or "any creature that attacks (please select either you or target ally)"? The current wording is slightly ambiguous...

The intention is the second one, so I'm interested in making the wording less ambiguous. "Any creature that attacks you or a target ally" could work, as per Xel's suggestion.

[Xel Unknown]

If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.

[ZamuelNow]

For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.  In some ways it's nitpicky and of lower priority than the actual balance changes but I've always felt it to be in poor taste and wondered how in the world it made it into the documents in the first place.  Now, I'm all for individual campaigns doing what they want.  What I allow my players to do is different from what I do after all.  And it's great that the system promotes reflavoring things.  But in the interest in system neutrality, I'd argue against that as a default name.  Been annoyed by it for a while and was continually trying to ignore it but felt it should at least be commented on.  Though I don't have an immediate replacement suggestion for a new name.

[A1C Bronymous]

Showed that Filly my Cannon. Fillies Love Cannons.

Only real alternative.

[Philadelphus]

If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.

Hmm, yeah. It's annoying that English doesn't have a simple way to express "exclusive or". Given that it shows up a lot it might be more useful to have a little note at the top of the document explaining what it means.

For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.

Given that it involves "blasting target creature out of combat," perhaps a good neutral name could simply be "Cannonball!"?

[Paper Shadow]

If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.

Hmm, yeah. It's annoying that English doesn't have a simple way to express "exclusive or". Given that it shows up a lot it might be more useful to have a little note at the top of the document explaining what it means.

It might be worth using the term "target creature" in those occasions instead. Saves you from the frustrations of ambiguous wording, although you'd have to double check over what each instance does...

[Xel Unknown]

I don't like the idea of using "Target creature" in cases like this... Cause it means that well... If somebody get's Dominated it can used by the enemy for evil means... And it also raises the question of "why use the target enemy" terminology too in my opinion? Cause if we're not going to have a phrase that clearly is for "everyone on your side of the battle" type of trem why use a term for "everyone that isn't on your side of the battle" type of thing? And I feel each of these terms have their place in the combat system...

Edit: Maybe we just add an phrase term in the listing of terms for "you or target ally" to help try to keep it clear what that means? Then again, turning the "target ally"  into "a target ally" I think removes all the avidity. Or maybe we turn it into "target party member" and give a phrasing def that it counts for all allies and yourself in terms of targetable targets for the talent? Then again... Equally unsure if the new phrase is needed to be added. And kinda disliking the idea of "target party member" the more I think about it. But it could work if a better term is used that could easily be used as a placeholder to count for allies + yourself. Cause at this point we just know that "ally" only counts for everyone other than yourself and it's change in def isn't a wise move to make we'll all agree there.

[A1C Bronymous]

"You or target ally" could be differentiated from "You and all(or target) allies". If you change it to Party members that eliminates friendly npcs from receiving the benefits.

[Xel Unknown]

Yeah... That's why I didn't like the term "party members" myself while I did bring it up. Cause I couldn't think of another one to state. And only bringing it up just but it on the table as an option. Still thinking the change to "You or a target ally". Is the best change to do for the phrasing.

[Xel Unknown]

Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.

[ZamuelNow]

For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.

Given that it involves "blasting target creature out of combat," perhaps a good neutral name could simply be "Cannonball!"?

Makes sense.

As far as terminology, I haven't thought of "you or target ally" as sounding odd. That said, my opinion may be skewed since I sometimes pick up such terminology easily.

Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.

I wonder if that might require a wording change across the board since multiple tanking moves have such wording.

[Xel Unknown]

As far as terminology, I haven't thought of "you or target ally" as sounding odd.  That said, my opinion may be skewed since I sometimes pick up such terminology easily.

I equally agree... Just the newer possible update to caltraps' seemed to spark such a topic. Which I still think just adding an "a" into the wording fixes everything. That is, if anything needs fixing in this case.

Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.

I wonder if that might require a wording change across the board since multiple tanking moves have such wording.

Don't think all of the tanking moves need such changes. Worry the Halving Damage moves might become a bit too strong if they all change to include loss of life. But I wont resist such a change if more people think it's needed... Just figure that Marty's Blessing of all of them really seems like it should work for everything... Maybe others could use a change too. But I'm unsure off the top of my head if they ALL need to change.

[Xel Unknown]

Going over the listing of combat talents (well the skype doc at least) for talents that deal with damage only but strike me as could also affect loss of life scenarios too. I've also added my commentary on whether or not we should change them to include loss of life effects.

all combat talents (that I noticed) that deal with damage only, yet could also be improved by loss of life triggering as well:

Also hoping highly to see that change to caltraps being finalized asap... Mostly just cause it seems awesome and love it when I'm ever playing official moves.

[Philadelphus]

When you come right down to it, literally every combat talent that does damage would be better if it dealt with life loss, because then Resist would be pointless. Looking over your list, Xel, I don't see anything that really looks like it needs a change. Caltrops was kind of a special case because it only did 1d4 damage, while most moves do at least 1d6 or 1d8 (at which points you also have special move triggering to take into account), so a little life loss kept it from being completely useless due to 2 or 3 Resist (and it nicely fits the name for an armor-piercing attack). If a GM is regularly tossing out 6 or 8 Resist monsters, that's a problem with their monster design, not one that we can (or should) "fix" by changing other things.

Similarly, loss of life on a monster attack is something that should be used sparingly, not on every monster attack. It's supposed to be something special that bypasses resistance and moves that normally guard against damage. So it should really only show up on monsters very rarely, for that "oh shoot our usual tactics won't work here" kind of feeling, and I don't think it's worth modifying a whole bunch of talents based on that.

Quoting from PM as requested:

((PMing this to you because I don't feel like putting a third post in the Suggestions topic... I request if you could quote this PM and post in the Suggestions topic yourself that would be swell.))

I've always loved that Soldier's Vest and Soldier's Armor had become a thing... But one major problem with them the more I look at them. They don't seem that much of an option to even take as I they always should be. I've thought one minor change that might work to help make them at least look like an option to take even if you already have resist from another source... While this might not been the wisest of ideas I'l admit... But because this is an extra 1 or 2 resist that is ONLY in effect if you got Temp-HP seems like a perfectly balanced in my opinion. I mean if you got resist from like any source that gives it, 500 gold left over, and just wanted to take the Who's The Tank trait this level up. You are wasting your gold taking the dam Soldier's Armor... And having something that cheap seem like only an option to those that build around getting temp and if you already get 2 or more resist from any source (really easy to do thanks to the fact we have a 3 resist trait) you've not go reason to take either version of the armor. And 500 Gold items should ALWAYS be an option to take if you got the gold needed to take it. I propose the following edits:

edits that need no new terms added I think:

Another option is that this could become like whole new term of Bonus Resist like Temp-Armor or some better term where that it gives you an extra resistance that triggers before temp but after vul or just adds like an extra stack onto resistance... Which would be a neat thing to add to the system. (and an idea to give Wanderlust's combat system) But the Temp-Armor that acts as a type of Temporary Bonus Resistance only it MUST have a "lose" condition built in to be Temp-Armor. Here's what I'd use if the armor were to use such a new term:

Temp-Armor Edits, Temp-Armor's meaning, & new trait suggestions:

Also the following talents could use a change to giving temp-armor, assuming you wish to make this new term a thing: (changes are underlined, (with the original status in [] next to it) the commentary was made before I ironed out the Temp-Armor idea. So it might not make total sense)

Combat Talent Edits:

Also would suggest that the term of Piercing Damage be given. A type of damage that bypasses both Resist and Temp-Armor/Temp-Resist but doesn't avoid either Vulnerability nor Temp-HP... Would suggest that the following attacks deal Piercing Damage (this change would help improve each of the attacks seem more worthwhile to take.):

Piercing Damage edits & def:

Regarding Soldier's Vest and Soldier's Armor, I don't see a problem with letting their Resistances stack, since they're quite small and only function while you have Temporary HP.

Regarding adding additional terms to the old system, I don't have nearly enough time to do that along with work on the new system, which we're hoping to release to the forums within a week or two. I can make minor changes to fix things that are blatantly broken or are mostly cosmetic, but the big open secret is that much of the old system is broken in one way or another, and it doesn't feel like a great use of my time patching holes in a leaky ship when I'm also working on building a brand new shiny ship with no holes (or at least a whole lot fewer). I know it's been a long time coming, but it's almost here, and I just don't have time to add new content to both at the moment (I'm also moving house this weekend on top of everything). Sorry.

(Also, if you want damage that bypasses Resist, there's already a move that does it [Piercing Shot] and an item that lets you do it with any attack [Really Sharp Sword].)

[Xel Unknown]

I know that... Just felt like sending in the suggestions anyway... Cause dammit... I liked how the old system seemed to be in endless updates... And I miss that fact with how everyone gave up on the Pony Tales system the very system this forum was named after! Also most of it came out of the mind well was in a combat with full loss of life... or something... I don't know... Just the idea of trying to review the old talents and try to FIX THE DAM SYSTEM is something it feel like only I care about... And wanted to send in my ideas to cause hey you are the only one still doing something with the dang system... >.> Even if those are just minor updates at best... And slow... And GMs got bad building because... THERE IS NO GOOD MONSTER BUILDING SYSTEM OR GUIDELINES AT ALL OF HOW TO DO THEM! So yeah... *sigh* Hope if nothing else Wonderlust at least avoids that major misteap even thought they'll never try to do that for the system the forum was named after and for. Mostly was just ideas to get the ideas out there really...

Sorry... Just in a ranty mood on this topic is all. It's fine that the one thing that did get a change got the change...

Edit: Oh boy.. It is coming out soon... *sigh* ...hope I don't have the reaction of it being our own version of D&D's 4th E (what I fear Wonderlust will feel like to me [YOU BETRAY EVERYTHING]), and I'm the biggest fan of D&D 3.5 (ponytales)... And note this is from a non-D&D player so I don't really got any opinions as a whole over either of those systems... I only got an opinion on Pony Tales. So I fear... I fear everything.

[Xel Unknown]

[-2] Smoke Bomb - Standard Utility
Until the end of your next turn, creatures that attack you must flip a coin before it attacks. If it loses the flip, the attack does not affect you.

Could Smoke Bomb be upgraded in some way to effect the whole party? Like maybe have it spend a minor as well or costs more pips to do that.... Or have it be a Varbile type of outcomes... Where it effects you plus 1d6 allies? Or just 1d6 target creatures? Cause really... Smoke Bomb's biggest flaw is that it can only work for ONE target, yourself... And can't be used on allies at all.

[ZamuelNow]

When you come right down to it, literally every combat talent that does damage would be better if it dealt with life loss, because then Resist would be pointless.

I disagree.  In a perfect scenario, both are even.  Loss of life is permanently static while damage can fluctuate with things like resist and vulnerability.  This doesn't happen in actual play since there's a lot of ways to mitigate damage but the theory is there.  Some defensive talents should be revamped to take into account loss of life but I think that needs to be a separate discussion since it fluctuates a lot due to what each combat talent does.

Could Smoke Bomb be upgraded in some way to effect the whole party?

That sounds crazy overpowered.  The biggest issue is that it's a Standard Utility instead of a Minor and that the nature of it as a coin flip makes it inconsistent.

[Sponsored content]