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

[tygerburningbright]

Um did the community not reach the conclusion that term Energy Pips (or something like that) would be used? So why does the new stuff refer to just energy?

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I don't think kindulas and nehiel fully decided yet. They're still running the show right now. I think the compromise we talked about made a lot of sense.

[ZamuelNow]

I think that the new Companion utility may magnify the need to discuss size ranks in the system and add a few alternate size racials, at least for Small and Large. Admittedly some generic GM handwaving can be done though clarification is needed even without the Companion. For the Companion specifically, one interesting suggestion to GMs is for the racial trait, allow one of the Shapeshifting utilities to act as a permanent state instead of dailies.

[Ramsus]

I really don't see why size should play a part in character mechanics unless you're the size of an insect or as big as a house. Neither of which are reasonable to begin with. Otherwise you basically just end up punishing or rewarding people for their character concept to no real gain of any kind and this limits creativity.

[ZamuelNow]

The system already has Small and Large (essentially, house pet and bear respectively) listed in some talents.  There doesn't need to be massive buffs or penalties for them but they do need to be defined.  And I do think some GM leniency would be in order.  A mouse can fit in spaces a bear can't while a bear could reach something higher up.


EDIT: Typo fix

Companion:

[Ramsus]

If you make people pay anything for it, nobody will be small or large. If you give benefits attached to make people want to pay for it, nobody will be normal sized. If you make people pay for it people won't be able to afford their concept in some cases. A GM can handle balancing someone's size as they deem fit without having to force mechanics on them for something that wildly varies. Also this means that the system doesn't end up telling people they can't play their concept for whatever reason. A mouse being small is not the same as a cat which is not the same as a dog. These are all smaller than ponies. Are you going to make something that fits all of these and still makes sense? Are you going to make one for each? How will you ensure that the result isn't a broken mess? What do we gain from this aside from a point draining mechanic that gets in the way of making concepts that happen to use a race/species just because that's what you felt like using as opposed to default pony?

Basically, in every system where they bother with size related mechanics for characters, it doesn't work out well. You either end up with something nobody wants and force them to avoid certain concepts or you end up with something everyone wants and people stop playing normal characters when they otherwise would. There is no benefit to defining size for PC characters that isn't outweighed by the negative results. It's also super trivially easy for GMs to handle these decisions on their own. They don't need a guide for using basic logic.

If you want examples of sizes as pertains to utilities, that's fine. But forcing us to care about sizes for PC characters is just going to lead to something that works poorly and results in bad balance that forces people away from playing the character they want to play in order to get the mechanical bonuses they want.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

On the board system, it matters to some degree simply based on how many spaces the player takes up on the board. Powers that hit everyone adjacent to the user, for example, are more powerful on a creature that occupies a 2x2 space instead of a 1x1 space.

[Ramsus]

We're not really talking about the board version. A mouse to a bear all fit in the "normal" size square. And really you typically shouldn't have PC characters that are larger than that on the board. (Especially if pony sized is a single square.)

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

It works better if the core rules for both systems are the same. There should definitely be flexibility in sizes and no real focus on mechanical advantages or disadvantages, but GMs still do need some clarification of what means what.

[Hayatecooper]

Honestly I'd like it so I can do things like Better Define Size for the level 10 Shapeshifter destiny

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Kindulas is working on an explanation of the sizes.

[ZamuelNow]

Thinking about Weather Crafting again I got to wondering, why not have the distance rank up with level? Level 1 would still probably need to be bigger than it is now but it would make sense that you improve over time.

[kajisora]

Thinking about Weather Crafting again I got to wondering, why not have the distance rank up with level?  Level 1 would still probably need to be bigger than it is now but it would make sense that you improve over time.

Wouldn't that complicate things a lot though?
By that reasoning, if you take Weathercrafting at level 6, there is no reason why you would be as good/better at it than a character who had it at lvl 1. In order for it to make sense you would have to start tracking at what level you took WC.
Not a lot of work for a single talent , but it gets complicated if you do the same thing with multiple talents.
Easier to just make it possible to take Heavy Weather multiple times, if you really want to be able to Weathercraft huge areas.
I really wouldn't mind the possibility of a character with a 1Km WC radius though....

[Ramsus]

Kajisora, I believe he meant in the way Fabricate does. It's not keeping track of what level you got it, it just scales up based on what level you are.

[Ramsus]

Whoops, posted this in the wrong thread.

It occurs to me that with only a single racial point, you cannot have a robot companion without taking the second companion utility. I think maybe you should give companions 2 racial points to start.

In response to what Dan said in the other one, I personally feel that people should have the option to have a robot companion without having to spend two utilities on it. Since companions can be replaced if they die, the benefits mechanics provide aren't all that amazing on a companion. I could see possibly not wanting to let people get companions with a Cutie Mark without the second utility but, otherwise I can't see why the Companion utility shouldn't give 2 racial traits. (And you could easily just state they can't take a CM without the second companion utility or such.)

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

While I agree that 2 points are cooler than one, and I really pushed for a way to get a 2 point version into the basic talent, there are numerous reasons that it's not feasible to have a creature with 2 trait points for the price of just one utility talent.

1) It takes only 2 trait points to get a utility talent. Therefore an animal companion would provide the unkillable creature *plus* another utility talent... Pretty much pure upside over just taking another utility talent normally.

2) Creatures have freedom of movement. They can scout, can be rezzed if they die, even test for traps and poisons if you're not a kind owner. Combine all the benefits of those abilities together and you definitely have value equaling at least a 1 racial trait point. That plus the 1 point that comes with it equals the 2 points a utility talent is priced at. Adding another racial trait point would put it noticeably above the curve.

3) In order to prevent min/maxy people from just using racial traits as glorified utility talent slots via repeated taking of Naturally Skilled - we decided to make a 3 point racial trait about twice as good as a utility talent. This means that a 2 point trait is supposed to be a bit better than most utility talents (compare Cutie Mark's benefits to the standard utility talent skill booster). A utility talent is actually worth about 1.5 racial trait points on average. This means that spending one utility talent to get a creature with 2 points *and* the creature itself would combine the problems of 1 and 2 together to make the strongest utility talent around by far.

4) Sillyness, if a single utility talent could give you a creature with 2 points - that creature could take Naturally Skilled to take a companion of its own... And that one could take a companion and THAT one could take a companion... And soon you would be the squirrel-overlord for the price of one utility talent. 


Now, not all racial traits are as powerful on your companion as on an adventuter, like the automaton one, and we might work in special ways to get those types of features later. We don't want to overcomplicate the core talent for the moment though, so I suggest just chatting with your DM about it - especially if you just want the cool flavor. For example, I'd be totally fine with letting you call your creature a robot for no additional cost - so long as there wasn't a mechanical benefit it got from being a robot. I'd probably be fine with letting you take the robot feature for 1 point - due to flavor awesomeness.

We might make more expanded companion options in the future (I'd say it's pretty likely, they're so cool), that make it easier to take the fair flavorful stuff without opening up a can of overpowered worms for the rest of the game. Feel free to design the special utility talents, options and destinies that'd make this easier. Or heck, maybe some "Pets-Only" racial traits! Then we could forward players to that document instead of the genetic document and get rid of a lot of these potential issues.

[Ramsus]

Hmmm that's a really good point.

[Xel Unknown]

I like the idea of "pet's only" racials... Maybe even some "pet's only" utility tree and maybe like you can take one for free (by use of one racial point or something)

The whole Companion thing is such a really cool idea. And even as is can be very powerful... If you specialize in it... But if we build this kinda like a Pet's only version of that Enchantment Utility tree. It could be kinda awesome in it's own right. Well maybe not all of the "pet utilities" being built to work like that. But I think a good deal of cheap ones could work like that.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Absolutely. There are lots of cool options. I'd like to have a companion-based destiny too!

[Hayatecooper]

I think I broke companion... and Instant Party... cause... yeah. (provided my naturally skilled working is correct and I can get my three companions.)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7DUaWGr9QC-3LSRGRdNjik-OM9plgxQ0RtPuu84iS8/edit

(technically though it would never happen it is physically possibly to get 27 additonal magic points with this build. Cause 3 instant parties with 3 additional creatures to a six party team.)

MFW:

[ZamuelNow]

A lot of good points were made, though some systems just outright state that a companion/henchman/sidekick can't have one of their own to avoid crazy stacking issues. Might need to do that here.

[Hayatecooper]

But how can I abuse the system if their isn't crazy stacking issues?
Also imagine the above build.. but they all have flame on and Fireborn instead of Flying and Party.
Wolves that shoot flames ahoy!

[Fury of the Tempest]

Most things can't stack to avoid power-abuse...

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

I actually do want it to be possible for companions to have companions, so long as we can find a way for it not to be broken. It feels really clever when you have a henchman take a henchman and it's cool to have several retainers.

I don't know if it's been implemented yet, but Kindulas and Nehiel Mori told me a while ago that they planned to implement a rule we'd talked about for a while which prevents same-effects from stacking the way items have a diversity rule... Which would prevent abuse of Instant Party with Instant Party.

I'm tired atm and prepping for D&D camp so I can't really go over the full build with a hawk's eye - is there any other way you broke it? Also, how broken *is* it with stacking instant parties? What are the exact implications?

[Fury of the Tempest]

Well, the problem with Instant Party, is that not only does the morale bonus stack, but it also increases the chance of getting more magic points.

D&D camp

Wait. What?!

[Sponsored content]