Alternate Core Documents

[Viewing_Glass]

Well, I can answer the pegasus trick question. Effective Flight Rank is the Flight Rank for the damage a pegasus flight trick does.
As for the flight rank changes during a round, that would mean that you, if you descended at the end of your round, would have a flight rank of current +1. Which is busted and should not be a thing.

There is no additional defensive penalty for Flight ranks 5 and 6.

[Thanqol]

Well, I can answer the pegasus trick question. Effective Flight Rank is the Flight Rank for the damage a pegasus flight trick does.
As for the flight rank changes during a round, that would mean that you, if you descended at the end of your round, would have a flight rank of current +1. Which is busted and should not be a thing.

There is no additional defensive penalty for Flight ranks 5 and 6.

Sooo, what that means in practise is that so long as I end every round by moving downwards even slightly my damage output raises by 25%? Good to know!

[Viewing_Glass]

Sure, if you got the trick points to keep up with that. As a note, remember how I said the defensive boosting thing is busted and should not be a thing? Thank you for reminding me why none of these should be a thing...

Or, a rule should be written that says 'For the purposes of Pegasus magic and defensive bonuses, the pegasus's lowest rank of flight that he achieved during the round should be used. For example, should a pegasus fly up and lower his base flight speed by one, and then down to end the round, increases his base flight speed by one, his effective flight speed for the round is considered to be his base flight speed minus one. At the start of every round, this resets to the pegasus's base flight speed.

[Thanqol]

Sure, if you got the trick points to keep up with that. As a note, remember how I said the defensive boosting thing is busted and should not be a thing? Thank you for reminding me why none of these should be a thing...

Or, a rule should be written that says 'For the purposes of Pegasus magic and defensive bonuses, the pegasus's lowest rank of flight that he achieved during the round should be used. For example, should a pegasus fly up and lower his base flight speed by one, and then down to end the round, increases his base flight speed by one, his effective flight speed for the round is considered to be his base flight speed minus one. At the start of every round, this resets to the pegasus's base flight speed.

Yes, but unless there's a rule that also says you have to move the full movement interval to get the bonus there's nothing to stop me dropping 3-4 yards directly down each round and stackin' up all the bonuses.

And if the full movement interval is required to get the bonus then, logically, it'd also require the full movement interval to get the penalty which means a steady ascent can be made. Or even, really, if a single move carries me 200+ yards (which it does) those 200 yards aren't all going to be in a straight line, so I can fly up at a 44 degree angle (shallow enough to not take the direct-up penalty), spinning in upwards-slanting circles for 100 yards of distance, and then break and drop directly down for 100 yards, full bonuses, no penalties.

I appreciate the intention of these flight rules, but the end result is when I wake up to go to my session tomorrow I'm going to argue to my GM why we shouldn't them and I'll be able to make a pretty strong case (added bookkeeping, unpredictable balance effects, enormous potentials for abuse, we don't have a 3D battlegrid so we already don't care where my character is other than what range category, and even full implementation in the way that benefits me the least wouldn't noticeably change my behaviour except in fringe cases).

[Viewing_Glass]

Yes, but unless there's a rule that also says you have to move the full movement interval to get the bonus there's nothing to stop me dropping 3-4 yards directly down each round and stackin' up all the bonuses.

And if the full movement interval is required to get the bonus then, logically, it'd also require the full movement interval to get the penalty which means a steady ascent can be made. Or even, really, if a single move carries me 200+ yards (which it does) those 200 yards aren't all going to be in a straight line, so I can fly up at a 44 degree angle (shallow enough to not take the direct-up penalty), spinning in upwards-slanting circles for 100 yards of distance, and then break and drop directly down for 100 yards, full bonuses, no penalties.

I appreciate the intention of these flight rules, but the end result is when I wake up to go to my session tomorrow I'm going to argue to my GM why we shouldn't them and I'll be able to make a pretty strong case (added bookkeeping, unpredictable balance effects, enormous potentials for abuse, we don't have a 3D battlegrid so we already don't care where my character is other than what range category, and even full implementation in the way that benefits me the least wouldn't noticeably change my behaviour except in fringe cases).

So, I bolded the relevant parts because, as a GM, I am going to use these flight rules. And, if I had a player doing what you are doing and trying to use the rules in the way that isn't intended, I'd ask what you are doing and, in the instances that you attempt to fly at such an angle to try and avoid taking the penalties that you normally would, I would start having you make agility and int checks at a penalty to perform those maneuvers. At least, until you had invented at least an advanced pegasus trick (though I'd lean more toward expert trick) that cost at least two trick points to try and avoid those penalties. Precision flight isn't easy.

[Thanqol]

So, I bolded the relevant parts because, as a GM, I am going to use these flight rules. And, if I had a player doing what you are doing and trying to use the rules in the way that isn't intended, I'd ask what you are doing

Stormwind Fallacy. The intention of the rules is not relevant and also, in this case, utterly unclear. Am I supposed to pick up on the subtext that this is a nerf to flight? A buff? I like systems and mechanics and I like thinking of optimization tricks; some optimization tricks break the game and some just make a better character. Am I doing wrong by taking the rules as written or am I supposed to be mind reading the author, who I've never met, to divine their intention? For all I know you guys thought through the pegasus corkscrew technique - hell, it took me like 30 seconds to think of it and it's implications - and decided it was a feature and not a bug.

Seriously, that 'rules in a way that isn't intended' argument is crap in general and especially crap here. If I figure out a rule loophole that clearly snaps the game over it's knee, sure, but this isn't that. This is a way to get +15 damage on certain attacks by using some high school geometry.

and, in the instances that you attempt to fly at such an angle to try and avoid taking the penalties that you normally would, I would start having you make agility and int checks at a penalty to perform those maneuvers.

Haha what, this is flying in a gently sloping circle and then stopping.

EDIT: Even the circle bit is unnecessary. Just fly at a gentle incline and then drop suddenly.

EDIT: Even the sudden drop is unnecessary. Because of how vague the wording is I could just drop a meter each turn and get the benefit. The gentle incline thing is only in case you've for some reason got to use the full 200 yards of movement with a move action.

At least, until you had invented at least an advanced pegasus trick (though I'd lean more toward expert trick) that cost at least two trick points to try and avoid those penalties. Precision flight isn't easy.

So what you're saying is that it costs two trick points per round to get +15 damage on an offensive trick because your instinct tells you that precision flight isn't easy. Cool. Maybe you should put that in the rules because it's not remotely obvious to someone who's goal is to look at the rules and figure out how to adapt to those rules in order to have his character not die.

[Night Light]

Jeeze, Stalliongrad game ended and I guess I just totally spaced to keep checking in here.

I think there should be a higher penalty for using Full Auto than just -10 to hit, but I'd like it to be something the character could mitigate by exceeding the weapon's (base) STR requirement.
Or just something like "Full Auto attacks are made at -10 to hit and count the weapon's STR requirement as 2 higher".

I know uSea made these comments a while ago and the conversation has kind of moved on, but as far as I can tell nothing actually happened with this. I add my (very late) vote in to see something like this implemented.

On a different rules topic, I'm considering expanding the Defense magic set to include Wards. My current line of thought is that Wards would be magical inscriptions that would prevent the use of certain spells across the warded area. (This is drawn from the sequence in Fallout: Equestria where Littlepip realizes that Shattered Hoof must be warded against teleportation.) Wards would have an exceptionally long casting time, making them a non-combat spell, and would last indefinitely unless disrupted.

Ward stuff looks interesting but very complex, clearly needs playtesting before it gets added into the doc. A separate "Ward Testing" doc might well be worth making at this point.

The following clarification has been made to Jinxed, so that it cannot be misread that the trait does not replace opponents' critical failure chance with your own:Both you and your enemies suffer double the normal chance for critical failure.

Hah, shame, was looking forward to that silly mess. Most definitely for the best though.

One aspect of flight that has been routinely discussed is the in-combat speeds of pegasi flight. It has been suggested that pegasi flight speeds in combat be restricted compared to the out-of-combat speeds they can attain, ruling that pegasi cannot build up to their full flight speed in a combat situation. Any thoughts and opinions on this?

You could remove the x2 multiplier on flight speeds for Pegasi in combat, though that would make doing the Sonic Rainboom in combat impossible.

I 100% agree with the desire to see flight speeds reduced (notably, not just that of pegasus). Removing the x2 multiplier on in-comabt flight speed makes sense to me, and still leaves fliers crazy fast. Regarding the sonic rainboom, given it requires "at least ten full sprinting actions in a straight line", I don't see a reason to restrict it, seems like that sprint would more be them briefly getting up to speed. I still think the to-hit penalties from the flight ranks are overtuned and could use a tweak downwards, but this is a great starting point, especially with the new flight rules.

The only issue I have right now is the observation that ponies can reliably nail targets two or more kilometers away with ballistic weapons but that's more a humorous observation than a problem that needs to be solved.

Given the shortest of the confirmed world record sniper shot was 4101 feet (a -80 penalty to the shot with this new math, before any other penalties) and the longest confirmed world record shot is 8121 feet (a -125 penalty, before any other penalties) this math seems alright.

Questions:
- Many pegasus tricks have damage ratings which are something like 15*Flight Rank; the document isn't clear if these are affected by effective flight rank.
- Also, what happens if flight rank changes over the course of a round - I ascend for 15 AP and then descend directly for 30 AP?
- Does effective flight rank influence the -20/-50 to hit associated with Flights Rank 3 and 4? If I have effective flight rank 5 or 6 (sonic rainboom straight down) does that defense penalty raise or stay the same?

Good questions, definitely something worth poking at. There are certainly problems with modifying flight rank as you quite rightly note in that second question. I would assume damage would go up or down accordingly for damage ratings and I would assume the defense penalties wouldn't go up beyond rank 4. Beyond that, not sure. Flight mechanics look great for being so new, but they definitely will need some refinement.

Either that 'and' is an 'or', else I need to know what happens when you fail that Unarmed attack roll.

If they miss I would assume they either faceplant, taking the stun damage (and possibly fall damage), or they enter freefall. Definitely should be added in there.

Or, a rule should be written that says 'For the purposes of Pegasus magic and defensive bonuses, the pegasus's lowest rank of flight that he achieved during the round should be used. For example, should a pegasus fly up and lower his base flight speed by one, and then down to end the round, increases his base flight speed by one, his effective flight speed for the round is considered to be his base flight speed minus one. At the start of every round, this resets to the pegasus's base flight speed.

Definitely a way to approach the problem. I don't know if it's necessarily the best way to approach it, but it's a method. I know my preferred would simply be a flat modifier to flight speed while near-vertically ascending or descending, or when dealing with winds or other issues, as it would bypass all the flight rank nonsense problems we've seen brought up here.

I can fly up at a 44 degree angle (shallow enough to not take the direct-up penalty),

A solid example of the problems with messing with flight rank, definitely one I hadn't considered. I will point out that the doc very purposefully includes the word "generally" in these flight rules to give GMs some leeway, but, still, not disagreeing with that being an issue with both (a) messing with flight ranks and (b) using the above approach of simply taking the worst. I do, however, believe that a slight revision to the mechanics at play in the new flight rules can easily achieve the desired results without the problems we're seeing here.

[LuminousNight]

Mmm, sorry. Sporadic internet access is awful.

Kkat, I did say my skill at making balanced abilities were pretty terrible. I'd go with the +5% per friend, personally. But yeah, don't trust my judgement in that matter, that's why I came here in the first place.

As a side note, has anyone done any work on changelings as a playable race? I noticed they got a mention in a spell description.

[Viewing_Glass]

Stormwind Fallacy. The intention of the rules is not relevant and also, in this case, utterly unclear. Am I supposed to pick up on the subtext that this is a nerf to flight? A buff? I like systems and mechanics and I like thinking of optimization tricks; some optimization tricks break the game and some just make a better character. Am I doing wrong by taking the rules as written or am I supposed to be mind reading the author, who I've never met, to divine their intention? For all I know you guys thought through the pegasus corkscrew technique - hell, it took me like 30 seconds to think of it and it's implications - and decided it was a feature and not a bug.

Seriously, that 'rules in a way that isn't intended' argument is crap in general and especially crap here. If I figure out a rule loophole that clearly snaps the game over it's knee, sure, but this isn't that. This is a way to get +15 damage on certain attacks by using some high school geometry.

Actually, its a way for you to get the following: Your enemies up to -30 to hit, 15+2d10 or 20+2d10 in damage. However, what you suggested was not a 'gentle corkscrew'. What you suggested was ascending at a 44 degree angle, to quote, 'avoid a penalty'. You can declare logical fallacies in my argument all you want, but that doesn't change that you phrased this in such a way as to mimic the most power-gaming, munchkining player I have ever seen. This, of course, instituted a reflex in me to lock this down as you were attempting to 'avoid a penalty' that you knew you were going to take.

Haha what, this is flying in a gently sloping circle and then stopping.

EDIT: Even the circle bit is unnecessary. Just fly at a gentle incline and then drop suddenly.

EDIT: Even the sudden drop is unnecessary. Because of how vague the wording is I could just drop a meter each turn and get the benefit. The gentle incline thing is only in case you've for some reason got to use the full 200 yards of movement with a move action.

Or I can simply declare as, since you did not effectively drop at enough of a slope to gain enough speed to gain the benefits of another flight rank. I believe some basic multiplication and division can tell me that.

So what you're saying is that it costs two trick points per round to get +15 damage on an offensive trick because your instinct tells you that precision flight isn't easy. Cool. Maybe you should put that in the rules because it's not remotely obvious to someone who's goal is to look at the rules and figure out how to adapt to those rules in order to have his character not die.

Really? I would have thought it obvious given a few real life examples, such as the Blue Angels, or some show canon examples, such as the Wonderbolts, or FOE canon, such as the Wonderbolts, might have told the average player that precision flight isn't easy.

And as a player with a pegasus, I can read through these rules, understand, and adapt to them in such a way as to have my character not die. And that's not because I wrote those rules. I didn't. I just took some time to visualize how my characters fly and will take some time before my next game to talk with my GM about these new rules so both he/she and I know what to expect. Should either of us have a problem or notice a loophole, we'd talk out a houserule to temporarily fix the problem, or both agree to ignore that rule until it was fixed. Then I would come online and post a description of the problem and the solution we came up with.

Speaking of which, what solution(s) would you offer to fix the problems you noticed? Out of all our back and forth, I don't think I've seen you offer a single solution, just tearing apart the ones I've offered. Might have missed it though...

[TyrannisUmbra]

Something I'd like to note:

'Effective' Flight rank would likely not include any explicit bonuses the Flight Rank perks give, because in game terms, you're not gaining a perk, you're just incrementing the number by +/- 1, which only affects damage of some tricks and movement speed. This /also/ means that if you sharply ascend and descend in the same turn, you need to spend MORE AP ascending than you do descending or you are going to end up flying lower than you started, which can obviously mean crashing into the ground.

Also, the cloud layer is created by the SPP towers -- So the height of the cloud layer likely coincides with roughly the height of those towers.