Alternate Core Documents

[Thanqol]

Actually, its a way for you to get the following: Your enemies up to -30 to hit, 15+2d10 or 20+2d10 in damage.

Yeah, which is why the entire system as implemented right now is a really bad idea. Flight rank is too integral with too many things to change like that.

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.

I quoted extreme examples to outline that this system has holes large enough to fly a Raptor Battleship through. I'll break it down into the component parts if you really must have it spelled out:

- I have an incentive to spend as many rounds as possible in a state of diving because it gives me significant combat advantages.
- The only incentive I have to not spend every round diving is impact with the ground.
- My objective is now to minimize vertical descent while also spend every round diving.
- My objective is also to minimize the absolute AP I spend diving because that cuts into other combat actions.
- By the rules as written I have a great deal of options to arrest my vertical descent, allowing me to spend either every single round diving OR in the worst case, one round diving, one round gently ascending at no penalty, giving me a total drop of only a few meters per round.

That's it, I'm simply responding to the reward scheme presented to me. You want me to spend every round diving so I'm, predictably, going to spend every goddamn round diving if it's physically possible.

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.

You can pick a number out of your plot - what is it, one full move action straight down? Two full move actions? How steep is 'steep'; can I descend at a 45 degree angle and ascend at a 40 degree angle, thus minimizing my downwards drift? Basic multiplication and division reading from which textbook?

The answer is that this is a vague and mealy-mouthed system as written meaning that it's purely arbitrary GM opinion and GM opinions will differ and that's a terrible feature for a piece of rules as absolutely critical as Flight Rank.

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.

You know who else ascends in gentle inclines? Jumbo jets.

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.

I am both player and GM and system designer and I'm perfectly capable of recognizing dodgy mechanics when I see them and calling them out for being dodgy and arbitrary, and I don't need to playtest them to know that.

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...

Come on, don't play the 'you're being too negative' card. You know for a fact that in any discussion like this step one is to establish that there is a problem. If I start throwing out replacement solutions while everyone thinks the system works fine I'll just get ignored. I need to get people to acknowledge that something needs to change before I forwards a change.

Anyway, my solution is simple:

- Decouple effective flight rank from everything else involving flight rank (dodge, tricks) making it purely a product of speed. Pegasus can dive faster and climb slower but they don't shoot more powerful lightning and dodge better while diving.

What this does for us is it decouples the incentives that are at the heart of this system from the strange behaviour we have to engage in in order to get those incentives. Problem's solved in one stroke because suddenly gaming the system is no longer mission critical.

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.

Could you refresh my memory as to how high those towers are? I know they're pretty big in general because we've got things like skyscrapers and hills, and skyscrapers on hills, but with all this flight math we kind of need an exact number.

[Viewing_Glass]

Come on, don't play the 'you're being too negative' card. You know for a fact that in any discussion like this step one is to establish that there is a problem. If I start throwing out replacement solutions while everyone thinks the system works fine I'll just get ignored. I need to get people to acknowledge that something needs to change before I forwards a change.

I believe that you could have established the problem in one post with its supporting arguments and given a solution rather than filling up two pages of back and forth discussion.

Anyway, my solution is simple:

- Decouple effective flight rank from everything else involving flight rank (dodge, tricks) making it purely a product of speed. Pegasus can dive faster and climb slower but they don't shoot more powerful lightning and dodge better while diving.

What this does for us is it decouples the incentives that are at the heart of this system from the strange behaviour we have to engage in in order to get those incentives. Problem's solved in one stroke because suddenly gaming the system is no longer mission critical.

Gaming the system is never mission critical. The system is built, as it is, to give a mechanical foundation for the roleplay we do. The only reasons you might have to game the system is that your GM is being far too lethal, and that can be solved by simply talking to him/her.

However, your solution here does neatly streamline the issue presented by being able to change flight rank with a move action with the new flight rules. It offers an elegant fix to the problem that you stated and keeps the new flight mechanics balanced around being a choice in how the pegasus wants to move. Thus, I can put in my support for this particular solution.

[Thanqol]

I believe that you could have established the problem in one post with its supporting arguments and given a solution rather than filling up two pages of back and forth discussion.

You objected to my assertion, and I could have been wrong! I was wrong on the very last page after all. I needed to give you a chance to convince me or inform me about anything I was missing. You didn't, which consolidated my opinion and resulted in a recommendation. Only through joyous conflict can we find the Truth.

Gaming the system is never mission critical. The system is built, as it is, to give a mechanical foundation for the roleplay we do. The only reasons you might have to game the system is that your GM is being far too lethal, and that can be solved by simply talking to him/her.

This system is a very, very lethal tactical wargame. Let's be straight up about that. The wrong crit or being caught by the wrong burst of fire while not wearing the right armour can wipe a character regardless of if the GM planned it or not. If we were talking about a different system I'd agree but this system is a tactical combat simulator with high lethality and high stakes. Our GM solves the lethality problem by handing out 'Fate Points' that you lose in place of death, but even then you've only got so many.

However, your solution here does neatly streamline the issue presented by being able to change flight rank with a move action with the new flight rules. It offers an elegant fix to the problem that you stated and keeps the new flight mechanics balanced around being a choice in how the pegasus wants to move. Thus, I can put in my support for this particular solution.

Cool, agreement reached, we done. High five!

[TyrannisUmbra]

Anyway, my solution is simple:

- Decouple effective flight rank from everything else involving flight rank (dodge, tricks) making it purely a product of speed. Pegasus can dive faster and climb slower but they don't shoot more powerful lightning and dodge better while diving.

What this does for us is it decouples the incentives that are at the heart of this system from the strange behaviour we have to engage in in order to get those incentives. Problem's solved in one stroke because suddenly gaming the system is no longer mission critical.

Gaming the system is never mission critical. The system is built, as it is, to give a mechanical foundation for the roleplay we do. The only reasons you might have to game the system is that your GM is being far too lethal, and that can be solved by simply talking to him/her.

However, your solution here does neatly streamline the issue presented by being able to change flight rank with a move action with the new flight rules. It offers an elegant fix to the problem that you stated and keeps the new flight mechanics balanced around being a choice in how the pegasus wants to move. Thus, I can put in my support for this particular solution.

Ugh, this is the WORST solution I've heard. Flight Rank is already extremely vital because it unlocks perks and shapes the way your character grows. If you decouple any bonuses aside from movement from it, then instead of actually decent perks they become like the were originally: Bloat for the sake of bloat that hurts to even consider taking, but is not optional in any way.

The Flight ranks NEED to have other bonuses attached to make them worthwhile, or else the player feels like their sense of choice has been taken away. "I don't WANT to level up my Flight rank because it does NOTHING except unlock perks! But I have to because I can't take the GOOD perks without it!"

It's like if things like Action Filly required 3 ranks of a perk that gave you +2 AP per rank and nothing else.

[Viewing_Glass]

Tyrannis, he means Effective Flight Rank. So, if you take Flight Rank 3, you still have the bonuses, defenses and that perk applies to the calculations of your Pegasus Magic. Any changes in Flight Rank due to ascending or descending wouldn't effect that... meaning at level 8 a Pegasus wouldn't suddenly have access to all the bonuses of level 14 perk (Flight 4).

[Thanqol]

Ugh, this is the WORST solution I've heard. Flight Rank is already extremely vital because it unlocks perks and shapes the way your character grows. If you decouple any bonuses aside from movement from it, then instead of actually decent perks they become like the were originally: Bloat for the sake of bloat that hurts to even consider taking, but is not optional in any way.

The Flight ranks NEED to have other bonuses attached to make them worthwhile, or else the player feels like their sense of choice has been taken away. "I don't WANT to level up my Flight rank because it does NOTHING except unlock perks! But I have to because I can't take the GOOD perks without it!"

It's like if things like Action Filly required 3 ranks of a perk that gave you +2 AP per rank and nothing else.

Yeah like Viewing Glass said I was talking about EFFECTIVE flight rank, which is the modified version you get from descent/ascent/tail winds. Your ACTUAL flight rank and it's bonuses and abilities remain unchanged.

[Kkat]

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.

I will clarify this in the document.

Effective Flight Rank only applies to movement rates, and has no effect on Pegasus Tricks except in meeting requirements. Nor does Effective Flight Rank give any of the defensive bonuses of actually having the perk. If your effective Flight Rank is lower than the Flight Rank needed to perform a Trick, you are too hindered to perform it. But it does not change your defensive bonuses (if any) for Flight Rank, nor does it change the effectiveness of Pegasus Tricks you can perform.

If the collision is intentional by any creature involved, that creature must make a successful Unarmed attack roll and does not gain their Stun DT against the damage.

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

That's easy. If you fail the Unarmed attack roll, you miss, and the collision doesn't happen.

[Viewing_Glass]

Awesome, thank you for giving a definition to effective Flight Rank Kkat.

[Kkat]

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.

Actually, I rather like the thought behind this idea, but I have serious issues with the idea itself. If a weapon already only fires full-auto, this strength requirement should be reflected in the minimum strength requirement already listed for the weapon. Otherwise, all this is doing is ninja-nerfing all weapons with a fire rate by raising the STR requirements by two -- which is bad -- and not listing that in their statistics -- which is worse. And, let's face it, upping the strength requirements on all weapons with a fire rate would do nothing to solve the real problem, which is "people think the penalty needs to be higher for full-auto" -- six months later, when the new STR requirements are considered the norm and everyone has forgotten the steps made to address this, you will again have people looking at the rules and saying "-10 is too low a penalty for full-auto, we need to fix that."

I would be open to implementing this rule change with the caveat that "this additional STR requirement only applies to weapons which have fire modes other than full-auto. For weapons which only fire full-auto, this requirement is factored into the weapon's listed STR requirement." However, this makes the rule change either exactly what is above (only with extra, unnecessary words) or a non-change, because that would either apply to all weapons with a rate-of-fire, or none of them.

Honestly, I really think the rules in this case should be left as-is.

[Viewing_Glass]

Kkat, what did you think of the idea about setting Full-Auto Weapons to having a penalty of 10+(5 times ROF)? It does lower their accuracy without ramping the strength, and give some reflection of the inaccurate nature of automatic weapons.