Author Topic: Rules for Pets and Allies  (Read 25439 times)

Offline Silverblaze

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #120 on: July 02, 2012, 05:03:22 PM »
I'm anti multi refresh stunts.  I think a "simple" rules set regarding how to make a minion/ally/pet better by investing individual refresh points for upgrades is a better route.

Offline Radecliffe

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #121 on: July 02, 2012, 05:46:06 PM »
It occurs to me that a modified version of the IoP rules could work pretty well for this kind of thing.  Just would have to determine how skills would be assigned and at what cost (if any.)  Obviously some things would be out such as unbreakable and the player would not have quite as much control so a slightly higher rebate might be in order (+3 or +4 perhaps.)  Skills could be bought at 10/15 points per -1 refresh. 

So if you wanted a pet wolf:

[-1] Echoes of the Beast
[-1] Claws
[-2] Inhuman Speed
[-2] Inhuman Strength
[-2] 20 Skill Points         <= Depending on how many skill points a refresh ends up being worth.
[+4] One time rebate, large and hard to conceal, limited control (animal), can be killed

Total cost [-4] refresh.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #122 on: July 02, 2012, 08:17:01 PM »
I'm anti multi refresh stunts.  I think a "simple" rules set regarding how to make a minion/ally/pet better by investing individual refresh points for upgrades is a better route.

I don't have a problem with multi-refresh stunts, but I agree that this write-up is probably too complicated as-is.  I think, for the most part, it just needs to be worded clearer.


Sorry to criticize-and-run, but I'm in the middle of something at the moment, and I might not be able to get back here for a day or two.  The one major thing I have a gripe with, is:
Pet And Ally Rules, version two or three or maybe four
...
It is also possible to adjust the height of a companion's skill pyramid... Increasing the height of a companion's pyramid costs 1 Refresh for each point of height and is only possible if an amount of Refresh equal to the square of the desired number of pyramid height increases has already been invested in the companion's abilities.
...
Aight, how does that look?
I would seriously advise against this option. 

I don't think a minion or companion's skill cap should ever equal or exceed that of the main PCs.  Such a caveat prevents someone's pet from outshining another player.  Keep in mind, this is a minion or cohort we're building here.  If they were all that good or interesting they should be a player character.

If you want to allow them to reduce their companions' skill cap for some benefit that's fine, but they should have a hard upper-bound that doesn't risk outshining other players.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 08:21:02 PM by Orladdin »
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #123 on: July 03, 2012, 03:26:13 AM »
Suggest you clarify at first mention of Quirks either that negative consequences thereof are treated as Compels for the player owning the stunt, or that they're treated as Compels against Debt (in which case they could still be bought out of, but wouldn't actually return a FP if accepted)

Quirks are not Compels. If they were, they'd not give bonuses.

They're similar to the quasi-narrative restrictions on stunts.

This should be obvious, but I wrote them badly.

That being said, I actually like the debt Compel idea. What do the rest of you think of it?

Obviously there'd need to be guidelines for how often said Compels would arrive, but I think it could work.

...("of course the related skill for my Wizard's Mercenary Hireling is his Discipline, he managed to impress him with his stolid and iron willed nature....").

I'm actually fine with that. If you aren't, the system has significant wiggle room there so you can have it your way when you play.

For the minions stunt, I'd suggest giving them a stress track of 2 each, that seems to be the standard from SotC and Kerberos, and although minions are meant to be squishy, I think that a stress track of 1 could make them too easy to take out. Additionally it might be worth allowing them a grouped 'Taken Out' consequence, but this would probably require some playtesting to ensure that it doesn't result in too much book-keeping.

Keeping track of minion stress seems like an aggravating chore. I'd rather avoid it if at all possible.

Also on minions, are we allowing people to drop the number of minions they can have in order to give them stunts/powers...

No, not with these rules. I don't really see the need for the extra complexity. Especially since most people who trade minions in for Powers will have spent Refresh to buy those minions.

Something quite problematic just occurred to me:
How does one perform the cliche strangle-wire stealthy take-down (ie. grapple inflicting stress) on a minion if they have even the least bit of endurance under these rules?

Good question.

The same issue arises when you try to grapple anyone with armour, but it might be worse here.

Maybe it shouldn't be possible to reduce grapple stress to 0 with armour.

I'm anti multi refresh stunts.  I think a "simple" rules set regarding how to make a minion/ally/pet better by investing individual refresh points for upgrades is a better route.

This is simpler than using upgrade stunts. That robot stunt would be about half a page long if I made it out of upgrade stunts.

It occurs to me that a modified version of the IoP rules could work pretty well for this kind of thing.  Just would have to determine how skills would be assigned and at what cost (if any.)  Obviously some things would be out such as unbreakable and the player would not have quite as much control so a slightly higher rebate might be in order (+3 or +4 perhaps.)  Skills could be bought at 10/15 points per -1 refresh. 

So if you wanted a pet wolf:

[-1] Echoes of the Beast
[-1] Claws
[-2] Inhuman Speed
[-2] Inhuman Strength
[-2] 20 Skill Points         <= Depending on how many skill points a refresh ends up being worth.
[+4] One time rebate, large and hard to conceal, limited control (animal), can be killed

Total cost [-4] refresh.

There are problems with this.

First, it's not very similar to an actual IoP. Using the same name is just confusing.

Second, you haven't specified the limits on how those skill points can be spent.

Third, it's not clear exactly how this works. Is the wolf an extension of the character? Or is it its own being? Does a companion get its own actions in fights?

Fourth, it's not very balanced. A 50-skill-point character for 1 Refresh is crazy good.

I don't have a problem with multi-refresh stunts, but I agree that this write-up is probably too complicated as-is.  I think, for the most part, it just needs to be worded clearer.

I agree, the wording here is not great.

I would seriously advise against this option. 

I don't think a minion or companion's skill cap should ever equal or exceed that of the main PCs.  Such a caveat prevents someone's pet from outshining another player.  Keep in mind, this is a minion or cohort we're building here.  If they were all that good or interesting they should be a player character.

If you want to allow them to reduce their companions' skill cap for some benefit that's fine, but they should have a hard upper-bound that doesn't risk outshining other players.

Some people might want to play a character who benefits from the assistance of a much more powerful character.

If that character concept can be enabled in a mechanically balanced and elegant way, it should be.

Sure, it's niche. Most people wouldn't want to play a character who's weaker than their assistant. But if someone does want that, they should be able to.

PS: I don't understand the comment about how really powerful and interesting characters should be player characters. The Senior Council is powerful and interesting, but they wouldn't make good PCs in most games.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #124 on: July 03, 2012, 04:10:32 AM »
Some people might want to play a character who benefits from the assistance of a much more powerful character.

If that character concept can be enabled in a mechanically balanced and elegant way, it should be.

Sure, it's niche. Most people wouldn't want to play a character who's weaker than their assistant. But if someone does want that, they should be able to.

PS: I don't understand the comment about how really powerful and interesting characters should be player characters. The Senior Council is powerful and interesting, but they wouldn't make good PCs in most games.

In (New) World of Darkness, for instance, such resulting characters are referred to as 'Mentors' and are available via their own Merit.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Praxidicae

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #125 on: July 03, 2012, 01:26:05 PM »
I don't think a minion or companion's skill cap should ever equal or exceed that of the main PCs.  Such a caveat prevents someone's pet from outshining another player.  Keep in mind, this is a minion or cohort we're building here.  If they were all that good or interesting they should be a player character.

If you want to allow them to reduce their companions' skill cap for some benefit that's fine, but they should have a hard upper-bound that doesn't risk outshining other players.

What about the near-stereotypical 'small kid with a slow (physically or mentally) but powerful guardian' character. I could easily see a PC wanting to play the physically unimpressive 'Joe Average' who owns an inherited amulet granting control over a Golem. Or a small child who has been 'adopted' by a horde of lesser fae.
Neither the 'Joe Average' or the child possess any powers or abilities that would mark them as 'PC material', it is their position of control over the more powerful companion character that marks them thus.
I suppose it would be possible to stat the 'Companion' as the PC and vis-versa...but that seems counterintuitive assuming that characters created under the companion rules are primarily controlled by the GM.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #126 on: July 03, 2012, 01:35:15 PM »
PS: I don't understand the comment about how really powerful and interesting characters should be player characters. The Senior Council is powerful and interesting, but they wouldn't make good PCs in most games.
Yes, but the senior council is not around solving the party's problems for them (or, at least they shouldn't be.)


Some people might want to play a character who benefits from the assistance of a much more powerful character.

If that character concept can be enabled in a mechanically balanced and elegant way, it should be.

Sure, it's niche. Most people wouldn't want to play a character who's weaker than their assistant. But if someone does want that, they should be able to.
Then they should give up their own skill rank maximums to boost that of their allies'.  Someone should be less good at something.

To give you an idea, the phenomena I am trying to avoid is the event that finally demonstrated to me that D&D version 3.X was broken, about ~six years ago.  The party had a fighter and a wizard/druid multiclass.  Both had perfectly reasonable character backgrounds and concepts, but through his system mastery (using all stock, out-of-the-book feats and powers), the wizard/druid build a crocodile familiar that was simply better in every way than the fighter.  It could hit harder, hit more often, grapple far better and had natural armor and weapons.  It also had human intelligence.  The wizard/druid took his perfectly reasonable concept for a character -- a hedge-wizard from the swamp with a crocodile familiar -- and entirely invalidated the party's main fighter-type.  This was because the rules allowed it to happen. 
[Edit:] I should also point out that the fighter was also created by someone who knew what they were doing.  They made no mistakes (other than picking Fighter in 3.X) that could be blamed for the ridiculous disparity in power.

I'm suggesting we prevent this capability.  Skill cap is the easiest and most guaranteeable way to do it, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 01:47:29 PM by Orladdin »
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #127 on: July 03, 2012, 01:44:48 PM »
Suggest you clarify at first mention of Quirks either that negative consequences thereof are treated as Compels for the player owning the stunt, or that they're treated as Compels against Debt (in which case they could still be bought out of, but wouldn't actually return a FP if accepted)

That's all I've got, for now.  Maybe more later.
Yeah, I agree.  Allow a player to buy them off with their own FPs... and perhaps, allow the player to take them to gain FPs-- after all, they're complicating their life.
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline benign

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #128 on: July 03, 2012, 03:54:27 PM »
It'd be handy if the OP were updated to include links to the sub-posts with the rules which come as close to completed as you've gotten so far.  I want to catch up, but sifting through 7 pages for the gems is a little tedious, and it's been a while since I originally read this thread.
Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #129 on: July 03, 2012, 05:49:01 PM »
Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!
Hey, thanks!  I must be a better summoner than I thought!  Welcome back. 


Ok, let's see if this works twice:
A naked Christina Hendricks doesn't just fall out of the sky, you know!
<waits hopefully></Dogma>
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #130 on: July 03, 2012, 07:00:11 PM »
Yes, but the senior council is not around solving the party's problems for them (or, at least they shouldn't be.)

As a matter of policy I don't tell people how their games should be. (I'm less shy when it comes to telling people how their rules should be, of course.)

If people want to have the Senior Council solve their problems, more power to them.

Basically, what Paxidicae said.

Then they should give up their own skill rank maximums to boost that of their allies'.  Someone should be less good at something.

To give you an idea, the phenomena I am trying to avoid is the event that finally demonstrated to me that D&D version 3.X was broken, about ~six years ago.  The party had a fighter and a wizard/druid multiclass.  Both had perfectly reasonable character backgrounds and concepts, but through his system mastery (using all stock, out-of-the-book feats and powers), the wizard/druid build a crocodile familiar that was simply better in every way than the fighter.  It could hit harder, hit more often, grapple far better and had natural armor and weapons.  It also had human intelligence.  The wizard/druid took his perfectly reasonable concept for a character -- a hedge-wizard from the swamp with a crocodile familiar -- and entirely invalidated the party's main fighter-type.  This was because the rules allowed it to happen. 
[Edit:] I should also point out that the fighter was also created by someone who knew what they were doing.  They made no mistakes (other than picking Fighter in 3.X) that could be blamed for the ridiculous disparity in power.

I'm suggesting we prevent this capability.  Skill cap is the easiest and most guaranteeable way to do it, in my opinion.

Now that's an argument with legs.

I was hoping that the massive Refresh investment required to have a companion better than you, combined with the inherent disadvantages of companions, would weaken the uber-companion option enough to call it balanced.

I'm not sure whether that hope worked out.

I have an idea. Using these rules, make the most broken companion stunts you can. Then we'll revise the rules to make those stunts less broken, if necessary.

Yeah, I agree.  Allow a player to buy them off with their own FPs... and perhaps, allow the player to take them to gain FPs-- after all, they're complicating their life.

Non-Quirky companions can have their Aspects compelled against the player. Is that not clear?

Quirks have to be a bit different from that in order to be worth a bonus, of course.

Sorry, I pulled that most annoying of forum magic tricks and disappeared. I'll update with what you suggest as soon as i finish reading the rest of the thread!

Welcome back!

Offline Chrono

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #131 on: July 04, 2012, 02:03:42 AM »
Wow. I was just treating my pet foo dog as an aspect. I had no idea we could give them aspects and abilities of their own.

Offline benign

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #132 on: July 04, 2012, 03:49:04 AM »
I'm working on a munchkinized companion for you, Sanctaphrax, and that will be up soon. Until then I have an observation about how the rules have been developing (looking pretty good, by the way).

Why bother basing the companion's skill pyramid on a specific skill? As many have noted, players are strongly motivated to find some justification for using one of their highest skills for this purpose, regardless of how silly the link is objectively. Arguably even worse is when they don't manage to make that justification stick, and they end up being (essentially) arbitrarily punished for their skill selection with an underpowered companion that they still have to pay for.

Does it break anything important to simply have their companion's skill pyramid top off at one level below their skill cap? It's simpler, and for most characters (who use their top skill anyway) it won't make any difference. And it gets rid of a little bit of confusion surrounding a rule that is turning out to be rather complex to implement. Thoughts?

Oh, and thanks for the welcome back! It's good to be back.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #133 on: July 04, 2012, 05:46:25 AM »
Wow. I was just treating my pet foo dog as an aspect. I had no idea we could give them aspects and abilities of their own.

By the RAW, handling it as an Aspect is probably best. All of these rules are strictly non-canon.

Companions are linked to specific skills because stunts are. Having a dog is an application of your Survival skill. And if your dog's abilities are linked to your Survival, then having a dog feels more like an application of your Survival than it would otherwise.

Does that sound reasonable?

Anyway, looking forward to the munchinized companion.

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Rules for Pets and Allies
« Reply #134 on: July 04, 2012, 12:33:33 PM »
I would have thought the most obviously broken companion would be worth 1 refresh have pretty cruddy skills and do nothing but maneuver to give a bonus to his PC.
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.