Utility Talent/Racial Trait overhaul/revamp - New "Abilities" system

I kind of regret the creation of the +20 abilities. Originally it was a way to create The Stare. However, +20 is such a massive bonus it can make life hard for DMs. Now that there are ones for every attribute... There's even more than before.

I'm all up for having a "add +20" for any skills you might need. Phil's version seems streamlined/okay. Though I wonder if it might not make it an "essential" skill to have for virtual any game/character.

It's also slightly disadvantageous when applied to brawn attribute, which only governs two skills (compared to others using three).

How would stacking rules work for that version of it?

Also, a weirdness in its wording: It's classified as an interrupt, but you are given the choice of applying OR not applying its +20 bonus, but only AFTER seeing the roll result. Wouldn't that be a reaction instead? It certainly would need to be able to be "cancelled" after a bad roll (e.g. a nat1), considering it costs a Magic Point.

Idea names:
- Pressured Performance
- Final Countdown
- Moment of Truth
- Let's Get Dangerous
- Save The Day

I put my vote for "Let's Get Dangerous" if we are voting... And dan, regret them all you like, but the genie is already out of the bottle. And nobody would be happy if the +20 talents where removed.

Yep. That's an enduring issue with open beta, at least when the testers get so emotionally invested in the game. It's a mixed blessing.

I will say that if we reduce things to a single talent, we'll lose the flavor of "The Stare" which was the only reason to include them to begin with (besides the fact that earth ponies needed something awesome, and so they got Yee-Haw back when races restricted which abilities you could take).

Man, these are relics of out-dated design environments...

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:I kind of regret the creation of the +20 abilities. Originally it was a way to create The Stare. However, +20 is such a massive bonus it can make life hard for DMs. Now that there are ones for every attribute... There's even more than before.

Well, it's an ability that costs ability points (3-12, depending on how much flexibility you want), and it requires a MP same as Generosity (which you can get for 0 ability points), for a +5 bonus difference. And there's also normal MP boosting, which is same thing for a +10 difference. I don't think a +5/+10 difference is that much of a issue for most DMs.

Most of the "challenging" DCs are sort of oriented around the 15-30 range (DC15 being annoyingly difficult to achieve reliably for 'average' stats, though), which is difficult/challenging for semi-invested specialists and non-specialists (9-14 skill stats, roughly), and simple for those who invest fully (15-20 skills).

As for 35+ DCs, those are achieved only through min-maxing, boosting through abilities, party assists (for which 1-3 people need to successfully assist to make a DC difference, depending on roll), and/or luck. That's kind of a limited "range of difficulty" for DMs to work out challenges with, and it gets more difficult if that "expected-to-be-achievable DCs" range is made smaller through lack of boosts / relying purely on the starts you start out with.

What's the point of all those high/hard DCs if they'll never be accomplished or have no effect? If a specialist's DC35+ roll achieves the same result as a non-specialist's DC20? Or if a specialist fails a DC40 roll due to bad luck, and none of his allies got the stats to out-do him without a crit?

The reason for many of those super-high DCs are because of abilities like these.

Xel Unknown wrote:And dan, regret them all you like, but the genie is already out of the bottle. And nobody would be happy if the +20 talents where removed.

Thing is, they just may have partially stuffed the genie back in the bottle. Reasserting the stacking rules on MP boosters means a whole team can't just pile points on to drop kick a castle. It takes more effort to work around the limits and a GM doesn't need to set DCs as high.

Zarhon wrote:I'm all up for having a "add +20" for any skills you might need. Phil's version seems streamlined/okay. Though I wonder if it might not make it an "essential" skill to have for virtual any game/character.

I actually wonder if the Ability point cost should be slightly higher so it feels less like a free pick and more like a choice to think about. Though not by much if so, only 3 to 4.

Zarhon wrote:Also, a weirdness in its wording: It's classified as an interrupt, but you are given the choice of applying OR not applying its +20 bonus, but only AFTER seeing the roll result. Wouldn't that be a reaction instead? It certainly would need to be able to be "cancelled" after a bad roll (e.g. a nat1), considering it costs a Magic Point.

It's an interrupt due to priority. It happens before the end calculation of the skill check. If you rolled Endurance to not suffocate, a reaction means you'd die and then it would activate afterwards.

I'm pretty sure it could be worded a bit more clearly though.

Zarhon wrote:It's also slightly disadvantageous when applied to brawn attribute, which only governs two skills (compared to others using three).

I don't really agree with that.

• Athletics is one of the "always useful" skills.
  
• Endurance is criminally underused by most GMs.
  
• A GM could theoretically split Athletics in two since raw strength could validly be its own thing.

Crystalite wrote:I can recall The Fun Has Been Doubled from the Legacy system, and I really think that idea - talents that improve your element - could really stand an extra look.

So, this is kind of an interesting subject. I understand where you're coming from; at one point I was so interested in something similar (upgrade trees for Elements) that I started working on my own third-party supplement to implement it. You can find it this thread if you're interested. That project sort of lost momentum over time; I can't speak for anyone else, but over time I found myself changing from wanting some sort of Elemental level-up to wanting to leave the Elements as they are. It's hard to explain why it happened – I'm not entirely sure myself. I realize now that making an upgrade tree for your Element would be similar to having to pick a destiny at character creation: it'd be one more thing to have to go through and look at to avoid potentially locking yourself into a path that you don't like before you've had a chance to experience the game, which is why destinies aren't introduced until new players have had a chance to experience the system for themselves a bit.

This doesn't directly speak against Element-specific upgrades, but... I've come to like the simplicity of the Elements as they are. I agree that if you're going to upgrade one you should upgrade them all, which is a lot of new abilities to add to the system, all of which have to be balanced (and ideally be interesting and fun), a prospect that's proven tricky for the Elements in the past.

So, I'm not saying it won't or can't happen. It would simply be difficult to get a set of abilities that really pop enough to work, in my opinion. Looking over your proposals, the ones that are simply flat upgrades are a bit bland, to tell the truth. However, the ones for Honesty and Kindness are a bit more interesting, with the choices in them. I could possibly see a set of abilities, one per Element/Virtue, each of which gives you a choice that allows a slight personalization of your Element (so one person could have Kindness that lasts for 15 minutes, say, while another could have Kindness affect up to three creatures at once). Interesting thought.

Hmm. You do have a point there.

Another thought I had. I know you took out Thunderbird, but except the fact for being a little underpriced I think it could be a fine thing to have around, especially if you took out the thunder flavoring. How I would do it:

(1) Encouraging Word - 1/Day Interrupt
Trigger: You or an ally you can see makes a skill check.
Result: You may add a +1 bonus to that skill check. You may take this talent up to five times, gaining an additional use of this talent per day.

That's a very efficient design, but it doesn't provide much of anything to the players. After all, a single +1 bonus to a roll (the bonuses can't stack after all) is very minor and hardly worth noticing. If you make it so that the ability can stack with itself, it'll be more noticable but will suddenly become a DM tax, as checks can balloon even higher now with additional +5 bonuses.

These are all issues, which become more noteworthy when you consider that the ability itself isn't exactly opening new design space for characters and is just providing something we have a lot of already - skill-check-manipulation. With all the clutter overtime of more and more abilities having been added for the sake of adding more abilities (our fault), our current goal is to only add new things that support new character concepts not yet supported or are just so cool, elegant and well-designed that it makes the previous ways the system handled that type of character concept pale in comparison.

I will say that there's nothing wrong with it mechanically. You can always ask your DM if you can take it for a game. A +1 boost can make the difference between making and failing a check more often than you might think.

Perosnally think it looks horrible like this... It means you'd mechainally only be able to go a +5 if you spend 5 points total... If anything it should automatically be a 5 point effect for just 1 point after all that'd be the side of the whole Thunderbird effects give outside of the iminity to electiry which we all agreed to have that be one point.

Regards Elemental Resistances:

It seems...odd to me that Elemental Affinities have Elemental Resistance as a prerequisite, and thinking on it, only half the people in ficiton who can control elements can't be hurt by them. Firebenders can hurt other fire benders, sure, magical fire and all, but firebenders can also burn themselves with ordinary fire if they aren't careful - not that any self-respecting Firebender would ever use ordinary fire, but the point. Superman has major ice breath, but not any particular Ice resistance I know of beyond his generic super-toughness (dude's got so many powers I wouldn't be surprised though). A lot of Pokemon have resistance to their own type, but it's hardly a universal thing. Most mages aren't immune to the kind of thing they cast either.

I think maybe making affinities non-prerequisite makes more sense, since that way you can make both kinds of characters. Plus it would make people who are upset about being unable to take more than one Elemental Resistance feel better, I think, because although there is a lot of appeal in being immune to something, there's a lot more in being able to create something...least in my opinion.

AProcrastinatingWriter wrote:Regards Elemental Resistances:

It seems...odd to me that Elemental Affinities have Elemental Resistance as a prerequisite, and thinking on it, only half the people in fiction who can control elements can't be hurt by them. Firebenders can hurt other fire benders, sure, magical fire and all, but firebenders can also burn themselves with ordinary fire if they aren't careful - not that any self-respecting Firebender would ever use ordinary fire, but the point. Superman has major ice breath, but not any particular Ice resistance I know of beyond his generic super-toughness (dude's got so many powers I wouldn't be surprised though). A lot of Pokemon have resistance to their own type, but it's hardly a universal thing. Most mages aren't immune to the kind of thing they cast either.

I think maybe making affinities non-prerequisite makes more sense, since that way you can make both kinds of characters. Plus it would make people who are upset about being unable to take more than one Elemental Resistance feel better, I think, because although there is a lot of appeal in being immune to something, there's a lot more in being able to create something...least in my opinion.

I've already brought up this exact subject earlier, on Skype and here, and wholly agree. There's a lot of RP left out from being unavoidably immune to your affinity - no potential for blunders, no care in usage of the power, no "accidentally light hair on fire", etc... If you want to play as a character with a power that's dangerous to them, resistance prerequisite outright prevents it.

It's also an issue of DMs allowing vs banning things: Affinity is easy and simple to justify in most cases (gadget, skills, gear...). Resistance is not ("Why yes, my pony metabolism *is* acid proof!"), and is the one that DMs generally have an issue with, which likely leads to it being banned.

If a player isn't allowed (due to it not logically/thematically fitting, or to keep them from being broken in a specific setting) to have a specific resistance, it means they can't have that affinity either, regardless of flavor. That's banning two abilities at once, when the system is oriented around avoiding that in favor of "allowing" things.

It also prevents the (uncommon, but still possible and plausible) characters that have a mis-matching resistance and affinity - for instance, resistance to water, and affinity for acid for a toxic amphibian, or some other. By this I don't mean the "stack every resistance/affinity" munchkin combo, just having a singular affinity and resistance that don't match in elements.

I agree that reversing the prerequisites on elemental resistance and affinity is the right way to go.

While I can undersand and get behind putting limits on elemental resistances... (minor ones I'd suggest) But do agree that it would be nicer to have options when it comes to being able to be the Avatar with elements that can hurt yea. And as said it is easer to justify then a resistance is.

So, looking at the abilities doc.
Why is
Grandeur (5)
You provide a +1 morale bonus to the skill checks of all allies that can see you.

Still in the doc? It's pointless, way over priced and weak. I mean compare it to Instant party. A 3 cost ability that gives a permanent +1 for the day and potentially nets you a magic point. Honestly? Remove grandeur it's a waste of everyone's time.

Hayatecooper wrote:So, looking at the abilities doc.
Why is
Grandeur (5)
You provide a +1 morale bonus to the skill checks of all allies that can see you.

Still in the doc? It's pointless, way over priced and weak. I mean compare it to Instant party. A 3 cost ability that gives a permanent +1 for the day and potentially nets you a magic point. Honestly? Remove grandeur it's a waste of everyone's time.

Well, the +1 bonus stacks WITH instant party, so it's an added extra to 'stack' in a team. No reason to just ditch it.

The price does seem off, though - Instant Party does all it does, and more (grandeur doesn't give its +1 bonus to its owner, unlike instant party). It being a 'passive' is pointless compared to Instant Party which only needs to be done once, right after the extended rest, to get the same benefit and extras (food/water, MP chance) it entails. Grandeur either needs to be a +2 for 5 points (with upgrade?), or get some other benefit that makes it unique as a passive.

Maybe turn "grandeur" into an equivalent of "Sweet & Elite"? You're so amazing you get cool things, and a +1 bonus to others for seeing how amazing you are.

Indeed. If nothing else, the costs should be flipped for the abilities (as Instant Party is the strictly-better version). Or perhaps make one an upgrade of the other, or change the costs in some other way. Cutting is also possible, of course (it always is).

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:Indeed. If nothing else, the costs should be flipped for the abilities (as Instant Party is the strictly-better version). Or perhaps make one an upgrade of the other, or change the costs in some other way. Cutting is also possible, of course (it always is).

Maybe combine functionality of some other talents? For instance, give it the +1 bonus, and provide your character a +3 bonus when you are assisted (or are assisting).

Ok... That is an absurd nerf to Instant Party in my opinion cause as a utilty talent it's +1 bonus lasted for a full day.