Alternate Core Documents

[Ilushia]

I don't think it harms the rules very much to keep. But I also don't feel it's necessarily the best way to solve the problem.

Off-hand, without looking at the specific rules, I can't think of anything it breaks. But I could certainly imagine arguments in regards to 'willingness' of unconscious targets or the like. As well as arguable willingness in regards to non-sentient creatures like radigators.

I'd prefer to tighten up the wording on individual spells if necessary rather than doing this, unless absolutely necessary.

[mintjulep]

"Willing" seems to require "will", so an inanimate object wouldn't fall under that category.

Still, if it's needed, making sure to specify that inanimate objects can't be the target of spells that require willingness makes sense. 'Cause, you know, lack of sentience.

And that's the worst case of rules-laywering I've heard in years.

[Night Light]

Please let me know if this provides valuable information and should remain in the rules. I don't want to clutter the document with unnecessary (and potentially intelligence-insulting) text, so if defining "willing" reads as such, I will remove it.

Given there are plenty of systems that specifically define inanimate as always willing, a few lines included to add cautionary clarification seems perfectly fine. There are plenty of spells, such as the mentioned Come to Life, that could do with more specification. The end line of that addition is also a unique addition that definitely wouldn't otherwise be obvious.

And that's the worst case of rules-laywering I've heard in years.

Considering the system is still in a deep-alpha state, all efforts should be taken to make sure that the functionality of spells, items, and combat actions is not a matter of interpretation, but rather something clear-cut and easily understood. Sometimes you have to point out "This is how X ability works RAW. If that's not intended, it needs to be reworded/reworked." In a normal, finished system, yes, that's rules-lawyering and undesirable - in active system design, it's something that absolutely needs to happen. That's exactly what happened with the React action changes when our group approached it and the new clarification got pushed through.

[Kkat]

Made an additional adjustment to purple alicorn Teleport to prevent "attended objects" from being applied to cybernetics or structural components.

[Viewing_Glass]

So, after some careful number crunching, I have come to the following conclusion: Being able to cast 10 spells in a single round is broken.

'Yes! That's true, Viewing Glass! Its why a Unicorn can't do that!' You all say. But I would have to disagree with this.

It is possible for a Unicorn to cast 10 spells in a single round. How? With one spell.

Spell Closet.

At Expert, it allows you to store your Versatility in Spells for up to Potency days. The problem is that allows you to cast each spell inside for 15 AP. This doesn't seem so bad, until the Unicorn with Agility 7 takes Flash, and has 150 AP to spend for that round. They can unleash every spell, from that spell closet, with no issue. It may eat up a ton of strain, but...

My suggested fix: Remove the 15 AP casting time, and set it as the current casting time the unicorn has. This should prevent any abuse of Spell Closet from anyone again, while retaining Spell Closets awesomeness of being able to store a spell in case of emergency, and still making it a worthwhile choice to pick up.

[TyrannisUmbra]

So, after some careful number crunching, I have come to the following conclusion: Being able to cast 10 spells in a single round is broken.

'Yes! That's true, Viewing Glass! Its why a Unicorn can't do that!' You all say. But I would have to disagree with this.

It is possible for a Unicorn to cast 10 spells in a single round. How? With one spell.

Spell Closet.

At Expert, it allows you to store your Versatility in Spells for up to Potency days. The problem is that allows you to cast each spell inside for 15 AP. This doesn't seem so bad, until the Unicorn with Agility 7 takes Flash, and has 150 AP to spend for that round. They can unleash every spell, from that spell closet, with no issue. It may eat up a ton of strain, but...

My suggested fix: Remove the 15 AP casting time, and set it as the current casting time the unicorn has. This should prevent any abuse of Spell Closet from anyone again, while retaining Spell Closets awesomeness of being able to store a spell in case of emergency, and still making it a worthwhile choice to pick up.

The entire reason I pushed for Spell Closet's creation in the first place was to allow reduced AP costs on casting with some limitation -- you just pay a portion early, and a portion later. It helps reduce the time burden on casting spells if you have the opportunity to pre-cast, and you MUST have the opportunity to gain any benefit out of it.

What I'd probably suggest for that odd case where a unicorn casts so many spells in one turn is a stipulation that only x number of closeted spells can be cast in the same turn, or something similar. Maybe each successive cast costs +5 strain, or +5 AP. Maybe a reduction in the time that spells can remain in limbo -- I've always been incredulous at all the spells that last "X days". At the most, I personally believe that a spell should never last more than a day -- or at the least, all active spells should fizzle if the unicorn is unconscious (Such as during sleep).

...Plus, unicorns on turbo are not the common case.



I do also have a question of my own. With the new combat coordinator, what happens if two ponies have it in the group? If the first rolls an init of 20, and the second an init of 16 -- can the one with 20 init have the coordinator with 16 init move on her turn, and allow the second coordinator to have 3 more party members of her own move on the init of 20, or are they still stuck with the init of 16?

[Kkat]

Spell Closet: Good call on the potential abuse of Spell Closet. I'll add a limitation to how many spells may be cast from Spell Closet per turn.

Spell Closet will only allow one hung spell to be cast per turn. This will increase to two hung spells at expert. To prevent abuse, I will be adding a note to the spell prohibiting Zen Casting into a spell closet, and preventing the use of Wild Spell in the same turn as Spell Closet. In addition, the Great and Powerful version of Spell Closet will be included the spell notes.

Combat Coordinator: The perk specifies that the selected others act on your initiative roll. This means that if you are under an effect that allows you to act on an initiative other than your initiative roll, such as by expert Combat Precognition or the assistance of another Combat Coordinator, the selected beneficiaries of your perk do not also benefit from that effect.

[TyrannisUmbra]

Spell Closet: Good call on the potential abuse of Spell Closet. I'll add a limitation to how many spells may be cast from Spell Closet per turn.

Spell Closet will only allow one hung spell to be cast per turn. This will increase to two hung spells at expert. To prevent abuse, I will be adding a note to the spell prohibiting Zen Casting into a spell closet, and preventing the use of Wild Spell in the same turn as Spell Closet. In addition, the Great and Powerful version of Spell Closet will be included the spell notes.

I suddenly had the weirdest thought.

Is it possible to cast Spell Closet and hang Spell Closet so you can re-hang more spells when they're all used?

It's like... fractal spells.

[Viewing_Glass]

...That is so cool.

[Kkat]

...whoa. Mind blown.

Okay, in serious answer, you could hang Spell Closet in a Spell Closet. However, you have to completely cast Spell Closet in order to hang any spells in it, so the Spell Closet hung in your Spell Closet would be empty.

Add this little tidbit to Sensory Foil: Visual Sensory Foil (including Invisibility) will not mask the light emanating from light source otherwise obscured by the effect (for example, if a stable-dweller using a Stealth Buck leaves her PipBuck light on, or a blue alicorn casts a spell, causing her horn to glow).

Rules Considerations (Part 1)

I've had some suggestions for changes brought up by various people which I wanted to put to forum discussion.

Initiative: It has been suggested that Perception should play a role in initiative -- the more alert you are, the faster you should go. There are a few options I think would be worth considering:

1) Keep Initiative as it is. Pros: nothing changes; no rebalancing issues. Cons: nothing changes; perception still not a factor in initiative.
2) Initiative = 1d10 + [AGI + PER]. Benefit: easy math. Problems: cripples the effectiveness of Initiative-boosting perks, spells and effects.
3) Initiative = 1d10 + [(AGI / 2, rounded up) + (PER / 2, rounded up)]. Pros: Perception now a factor without requiring rebalancing. Cons: extra math-y.
4) Keep Initiative as is, but change the rules for simultaneous Initiatives such that the person with the higher Perception goes first. Pros: Perception now a factor, albeit a minor one; reduces the frequency of calculating simultaneous actions AP-by-AP (which can take a horrible amount of game time). Cons: none that I can see.

Movement: Currently, there is no set AP cost for Jumping and no rules for Swimming whatsoever. This should be remedied. What rules and costs would you suggest?

Left Over AP: Some people are frustrated that they always have AP left over with nothing to use it on. We currently have three ways to spend excess AP: Wild Shot, Wild Spell (with perk only) and Dodging. Do we need another? And, if so, what? (Personally, I am of the opinion that this doesn't need to be changed -- left over AP is a good motivator to invest in ways to gain more AP or to reduce your AP costs -- but I am open to suggestions.)

Stun Damage: Stun Damage is still a bit too powerful. (Stun Damage, for instance, shouldn't be instant win against a Steel Ranger.) One suggestion is to do away with Stun DT and just make normal DT apply to it. However, this turns Stun Damage into something unique and threatening into "just like normal damage but it doesn't kill you". (With the side effect of filling me full of bleah.) However, another suggestion has really caught my interest:

Already, Stun Damage ignores DT but shields are double-effective against it. What would you think if we extended that effectiveness to Damage Reduction too? DR is double-effective against Stun Damage? This means the average character can buff themselves with 40% DR against Stun if they are willing to risk Painkiller addiction. And a Steel Ranger with Painkiller is sitting at a confident 80% DR against Stun-based attacks.

Disarming: Should we add a special quality to some weapons to indicate that you cannot use Disarm on those weapons?

I'd love to hear your thoughts and input.