Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[AndreiChekov]

If you want to make a scout not be a pile of ass, you have to change the class.

Starting with suggestions as Andrei noted seems reasonable. They'll still need some magical ju-ju. No reason why they shouldn't have UMD too.

And maybe give them disable device as a class skill, because they have trapfinding.

[AndreiChekov]

And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

I meant granting that in the class itself.

[Kaelik]

And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

I meant granting that in the class itself.

No you didn't. You quoted me explaining how to full attack with a scout and said they can't full attack.

In another completely different post you talked about adding it to the class, but in that post I quoted and responded to, you said that Scouts can't full attack as a specific contradiction to my statement that scouts with a level dip for swift action teleports are slightly worse rogues. And you were wrong.

[AndreiChekov]

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

I meant granting that in the class itself.

No you didn't. You quoted me explaining how to full attack with a scout and said they can't full attack.

In another completely different post you talked about adding it to the class, but in that post I quoted and responded to, you said that Scouts can't full attack as a specific contradiction to my statement that scouts with a level dip for swift action teleports are slightly worse rogues. And you were wrong.

Which wouldn't be a scout doing it, it would be a level dip scout. Which isn't really a scout anymore, becuase if you have to multiclass to be good, you aren't playing the class anymore.

[Kaelik]

Which wouldn't be a scout doing it, it would be a level dip scout. Which isn't really a scout anymore, becuase if you have to multiclass to be good, you aren't playing the class anymore.

Below is the statement you contradiction, and your contradiction.

I think you can do something with like a couple level dip or something and magically get a swift action teleport, and then they are basically just shittier rouges without the 30ft rule (I fucking hope, I don't remember off hand).

They still have it. And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

A short list of some of the problems with your attempted defense of that statement:

1) You didn't say "only a Scout 20, because Scout 19/Teflammor Shadowlord 1 is a completely different character, because taking prestige classes creates a whole new universe unrelated to the first."
2) You were specifically replying to my statement that a dipped Scout could full attack Skirmish claiming that specifically the thing I just said couldn't full attack Skirmish.
3) I said "or something" so if you spend a two feats to get it, surely then you must admit that the fucking Scout 20 is still a goddam scout.

Now admit that you were wrong in that specific post that I just quoted were you responded to me, or I will put you on ignore.

[AndreiChekov]

Which wouldn't be a scout doing it, it would be a level dip scout. Which isn't really a scout anymore, becuase if you have to multiclass to be good, you aren't playing the class anymore.

Below is the statement you contradiction, and your contradiction.

I think you can do something with like a couple level dip or something and magically get a swift action teleport, and then they are basically just shittier rouges without the 30ft rule (I fucking hope, I don't remember off hand).

They still have it. And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

A short list of some of the problems with your attempted defense of that statement:

1) You didn't say "only a Scout 20, because Scout 19/Teflammor Shadowlord 1 is a completely different character, because taking prestige classes creates a whole new universe unrelated to the first."
2) You were specifically replying to my statement that a dipped Scout could full attack Skirmish claiming that specifically the thing I just said couldn't full attack Skirmish.
3) I said "or something" so if you spend a two feats to get it, surely then you must admit that the fucking Scout 20 is still a goddam scout.

Now admit that you were wrong in that specific post that I just quoted were you responded to me, or I will put you on ignore.

But if you notice that part where I had already started talking about remaking the class, and then you said that shit about already mentioning a swift teleport by level dipping. The conversation had moved on already.

[Kaelik]

But if you notice that part where I had already started talking about remaking the class, and then you said that shit about already mentioning a swift teleport by level dipping. The conversation had moved on already.

Stop being a lying asshole you shitfaced idiot.

I posted that statement in this thread about the Scout before you posted anything about the scout.

Your very first post about the scout was contradicting my correct statement with that exact bullshit.

All of this occurred before you talked about rewriting the class. The conversation went:

Fectin: Asks about scout.
Me: Says something about using the scout.
You: telling me I am wrong when I was correct, and you were wrong.
After that post, You: Talking about rewriting the class.

Everything since: You being a lying Zak S shit who lies and throws up increasingly bad justifications because you are too fucking childish to just admit you were wrong about your initial contradiction.

You go on ignore Zak S clone.

[AndreiChekov]

Just to preserve some semblance of my reputation,
here is kaelik saying stuff that looks awfully like he is talking about my proposed revisions of the scout class

Now that I think about it, you could fix most of the problems by:

-making so that every skirmish upgrade is a d6 more of damage.
-removing the 30 ft. limit
-and giving them a way to move 10 ft. as a swift action.

And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

Which would be why

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

I meant granting that in the class itself.

No you didn't. You quoted me explaining how to full attack with a scout and said they can't full attack.

In another completely different post you talked about adding it to the class, but in that post I quoted and responded to, you said that Scouts can't full attack as a specific contradiction to my statement that scouts with a level dip for swift action teleports are slightly worse rogues. And you were wrong.

this happened, because by that point, it actually looks like kaelik might be talking about what I said about the class.

[Kaelik]

here is kaelik saying stuff that looks awfully like he is talking about my proposed revisions of the scout class [If you are a lying asshole]

And skirmish doesn't work with a full attack action because they have to move 10 ft. to activate it.

If only they took a few level dips for a swift round teleport or something. Or if only I specifically fucking said that asfter you do that.

Hey, which post is that that I am quoting? Is it the one where you talked about rewriting the class? Or is it the one you fucking fucking addressed at me before that, that I clearly fucking quoted, and that I clearly specifically said that what you said was wrong because I had said something else.

Stop lying Zak S.

[hyzmarca]

In Old World of Darkness, Thin Blooded vampires could have sex and make babies. The resulting babies were essentially living vampires, having blood pools and watered down vampire powers, but none of the benefits or weaknesses of being undead.

So in an effort to make my GM hate me, I have to ask. What happens when a thin blood knocks boots and makes babies with a werewolf. Specifically, is a Werewolf Dhampire (or Dhampire Werewolf) rules legal?

And second of all, what happens of a Dhampire Diablarizes a low-generation vampire? Does it get the benefits of a lower generation while remaining alive for all intents and purposes?

[Prak]

Strictly, a Dhampire Werewolf shouldn't exist. In the rules on embracing a werewolf they talk about how the "vampire-ness" kills the spiritual "werewolf-ness." An embraced werewolf loses its Gnosis, and possibly Rage, and cannot ever learn another gift, because the spirit side of it is dead. They might also become modelocked in one form, but I can't recall.

If a dhampire and a werewolf had sex and conceived-- if the mother was the werewolf, the child is probably killed upon birth, because "Vampires aren't really wyrm creatures but they're TOTALLY of the wyrm, yeah, um... because *Rein*Hagen snorts another line of coke off the nearest goth chick*" If the mother is the dhampire, they probably just raise the kid as they individually would. The most that might come out of it is that the kid might have the extra potent blood of garou. And if embraced werewolves don't get modelocked, then maybe some shapeshifting, but I doubt he'd ever be accepted into Garou society to learn gifts, or even have the essential garou spiritness.

That of course assumes you're using WW's kind of dumb rules for embracing werewolves.

[Koumei]

Okay, this isn't for something I'm going to be working on*, it's purely hypothetical. There was that idea for a game where every class has their own resource management or power schedule so they work differently - the assassin is all about charging their powers up before unleashing them, the rogue is "at will, but with logic gate requirements on activating them", the barbarian triggers RageMode with a countdown timer but before that happens they are encouraged to be "where the violence is" (on either end of it) and so on.

What would you do with a Bard? I kind of like the NWN2 thing where you have some ongoing effects that are at-will-all-day but only one at a time (stat boosters), and other things that unleash a burst of X (damage and debuff enemies, fascinate etc) and actually take actions to use. You could even divide them into Song and Dance if you wanted.

Other ideas have involved:

Reyvateil-style "you perform, and it either does X every turn (such as providing an ongoing acceptable bonus or dealing damage each turn), or it causes an escalating effect each turn (first it cures 1d6 HP to all allies, then 2d6, then 3d6...), or something that does bigger and badder stuff based on how many turns you charge it up". Although that would basically play out the same way a Hero/Assassin multiclass would.

Have a bunch of at-will minor effects called "Notes" (replicating level 1 spells, fire-and-forget). Then later you can combine them together, spending a Full Round Action, for a bigger effect, maybe one with a duration, and call them "Chords". Then later you get the ability to combine them in such a way that you can keep the effect going, granting a bigger effect, with a duration of "keep playing". And you call them "Songs".

How would you make the Bard feel "bardy" and also play differently from those other characters?

*And I don't even mean "It's something I'll start work on, but like most game system things I start on, it will be left to dry out in the sun long before completion".

[Avoraciopoctules]

How would you make the Bard feel "bardy" and also play differently from those other characters?

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66195- ... d-priests/

Chanters are storytellers and repositories of ancient lore from myriad cultural traditions. They use these stories and legends to stir the memories of the dreaming lost souls and soul fragments that surround them. The spirits respond by creating magical effects, essentially playing their part in the recreation of the legends. In this way, chanters act as directors of supernatural actors playing out momentary plays for the chanter's benefit. Due to their heavy focus on folktales and storytelling, they have an inherent bonus to Lore. As explorers of many lost and forgotten vaults dating back to Eora's antiquity, chanters also have a bonus to Mechanics, helping them bypass tricky locks and traps.

To use their special kind of magic, chanters link together individual short phrases from different legends to create longer chants. The phrases have distinctive, thematically-appropriate effects that are of low power but can be applied while the chanter is engaged in other combat activities. As one phrase ends and another begins, the effects of the first phrase will linger, allowing multiple phrases to overlap with each other. Through the clever overlapping of phrases, chanters can grant their allies a sizable stack of minor bonuses.

But chanters aren't entirely about their passive phrases and chants. With each phrase that passes, chanters gain greater control over the spirits assisting them. When enough control is gained, chanters can direct them to perform a single powerful spell called an invocation. Invocations are often support-oriented, but some contain powerful offensive effects. Invocations are so powerful that they disrupt a chanter's chants, disabling their effects for several seconds until the chanter can recover.

While Eora's wizards are known for their "colorful" spell names, chanters' phrases are far more loquacious, often incorporating the entire spoken text of the phrase.

Sample chants:

Blessed Was Wengridh, Quickest of His Tribe - Movement rate and Reflexes increased for allies in the area of effect.
Thick Grew Their Tongues, Stumbling O'er Words - Enemy Concentration is reduced. (Will)
The Fox from the Farmer Did Run and Leap - Enemy Disengagement Attacks have reduced Accuracy.
The Silver Knights' Shields Broke Both Arrow and Blade - Increases the Deflection of allies in the area of effect.
At the Sight of their Comrades, their Hearts Grew Bold - Increases the Fortitude and Will of allies in the area of effect.

Sample invocations:

Not Felled by Axe, Nor Broken by Storm - Increases allied Slash and Shock Damage Threshold.
If their Bones Sleep Still Under that Hill, None Can Say - Summons three skeletons.
The Thunder Rolled like Waves on Black Seas - Stuns and pushes enemies in the area of effect. (Fortitude)
The Lover Cried out to the Beloved, "I am Yours!" - Charm effect on all enemies in the area of effect. (Will)
Rise Again, Rise Again, Scions of Adon! - Revives unconscious allies and heals a small amount of Stamina in a large area. This has no effect on characters who have already been Maimed or Killed in combat.
The Brideman Slew Thirty 'Fore they Crossed Half the Hall - Increases the Might, Constitution, and Resolve of allies in the area of effect.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, a combination of "drain" (warlock) and "charge" (assassin)?

[Username17]

In general, I would like Bards to not do in-battle songs. Because battles are short, and songs are long. I would think pre-battle songs would make more sense. Because it seems like the kind of thing that should take more than 12-36 seconds.

So basically, I think that Bards should mostly get some group buff slots that they can hot swap in short periods of downtime. And then in actual battle they should mostly swing swords, but having a couple of charge based sonic blasts or something seems like it would be thematic enough.

-Username17

[Prak]

I like the idea of lists of minor effects that can be combined. For a first level bard, it'd probably be little different than "Ok, so this turn I cast Aid...now I add Bane... Oh, little cure light wounds flourish!" etc, and as they level up they start getting to combine effects into single actions.

Edit: or what Frank said.

[Laertes]

I'm not sold on the idea of letting people combine small elements of magic into larger "verses", "songs" or "spells" on the fly. In theory it sounds good (player creativity!) but in practise stuff like that is unbelievably slow until the players work out the optimal combinations, at which point it's indistinguishable from a static spell list.

Combat needs to be fast. By which I mean the player's decision making cycle needs to be as easy as possible and the mechanics need to support this by cutting out chaff options, not blinding people with them.

On the original post: I really like your idea of different resource games for each class. My suggestion for the bard is that she plays off the deeds of her comrades. For example, if of one of them has cast a fireball since her last turn, it unlocks her Boast About How Deadly My Wizard Is ability; if the party tank has just no-selled a blow that would fell a wild boar, it unlocks her Brag About How Screwed You Guys Are Since That Guy Is Now Totally Going To Kick Your Ass ability. It's an opportunity thing full of buffs and debuffs that play with the other PCs rather than alongside them, and set the group up for emergent combos that involve the whole party.

How would you handle multiclassing? Is it even going to be a thing?

[Prak]

I don't know... I've played a few characters with dynamic power sets like that (usually in M&M with shapeshifting, broad type minions or mimic type power sets). It can be slow, but for "always useful" stuff, you're mostly doing that out of game, and the more conditionally useful stuff ("I really, really need to be able to run a gauntlet of traps") you're generally doing that while other people are taking their turns.

I mean, sure, newbies will get stymied, but that doesn't make the Wizard unfeasible.

[Username17]

I'm not sold on the idea of letting people combine small elements of magic into larger "verses", "songs" or "spells" on the fly. In theory it sounds good (player creativity!) but in practise stuff like that is unbelievably slow until the players work out the optimal combinations, at which point it's indistinguishable from a static spell list.

Design-a-spell systems don't work. And they really really don't work on an "on-the-fly" basis. As we ourselves went over with the Flexible Magic thread, it's completely implausible for a DM to fairly adjudicate a spontaneous magic system. Heck, you personally were one of the people who attempted to show how "easy" it was, and you spent several days working on it and came to the wrong answer. And most importantly: two other people did the same thing and came to equally wrong but meaningfully different answers. It just isn't going to work.

A fixed system of procedurally generated effects might be something that people might be able to adjudicate, but it's pretty implausible that people will be able to use it. A procedurally generated spell song is going to have hundreds if not thousands (or millions) of potential outputs, and players are going to be stuck with horrendous option paralysis if they don't build a small list of "go to combinations" during downtime.

Now, I think you can get most of what people want by having a modest number of buff slots and filling them with different modest buffs. But most importantly of all: I think people should be rearranging their buff slots not in the middle of combat. Because even weighing the pros and cons of putting different crap in 3 different slots is likely going to take a lot longer than other players are willing to wait for you to take you damn turn.

Combat needs to be fast. By which I mean the player's decision making cycle needs to be as easy as possible and the mechanics need to support this by cutting out chaff options, not blinding people with them.

Basically this, yeah.

How would you handle multiclassing? Is it even going to be a thing?

For a game like that, you want to do something like Paragon Classing. Basically, everyone gets a new character class off the "higher level character classes" list at a specific level. This is a pretty decent idea for level based systems in general, because it means that you can retire all the classes like Rogue and Berserker that don't have any obvious high level abilities in their idiom by forcing all the players to choose a higher level idiom that has higher level abilities in it.

So after a certain level, you actually can't be a mundane schmuck anymore, you have to be a Witch King or an Angel Knight or a Demigod or something.

As for first level multiclassing, I think that's best achieved via classplosion. 2nd edition only allowed 6 distinct 2-class multiclass combinations. Considering that the edition dropped with 8 classes plus specialist wizards (which was kind of like 8 additional classes) and specific mythoi priests (who didn't really have rules until the Complete Book of Priests, so we'll call that zero additional classes even though it assured the reader you could play one), it seems obvious that you could just make a class for every multiclass combination you would otherwise support.

Once you have the Illusionist and the Bard, do you really need a "Mage/Thief" in addition? It seems that one or both of the fully developed classes could be made to cover the entire spectrum of what a "multiclass" character could do. That being said, even though "multiclassing" does nothing good and isn't even different from writing up a half dozen extra classes - people have been conditioned to clap like seals when it is offered and gnash their teeth when it is not available. So I would definitely announce that the Illusionist (or maybe the Bard, Assassin, or Beguiler) was a "Multiclass Mage/Thief." You really have to write that somewhere even though it makes no structural difference because people will be angry if those magic words don't appear in the book.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Pre-battle buffs and then dancing about with "flourishes" (combat manoeuvres) seems decent enough, yeah.

And when I first read about the idea for notes that combo into chords and so on (I can't remember who did that particular Bard re-write), I think it was either "Now you can do chords. A chord takes the same action as a note, but you activate two of them at once" or "So you have Dancing Lights, Exp. Retreat, Daze, Charm Person, Grease and Colour Spray. With a FRA you could use a charge each of Colour Spray and Dancing Lights to instead create a Radiant Assault effect, or you could combo Grease with Exp. Retreat to gain a Haste effect." where the book provides the recipes.

But it occurs to me that even that depends on a player checking the recipe section, and then looking at what spells they still have charges for. So while it's not as bad as an actual "I take the [Force] seed and use that in a Paralysis effect, I'll advance the Area/Targets category to affect 3 enemies..." it would still take too long.

[Laertes]

A fixed system of procedurally generated effects might be something that people might be able to adjudicate, but it's pretty implausible that people will be able to use it. A procedurally generated spell song is going to have hundreds if not thousands (or millions) of potential outputs, and players are going to be stuck with horrendous option paralysis if they don't build a small list of "go to combinations" during downtime.

Now, I think you can get most of what people want by having a modest number of buff slots and filling them with different modest buffs. But most importantly of all: I think people should be rearranging their buff slots not in the middle of combat. Because even weighing the pros and cons of putting different crap in 3 different slots is likely going to take a lot longer than other players are willing to wait for you to take you damn turn.

At the risk of harping on about a game I like and you don't, I feel that Ars Magica handles this well, because while you can improvise magic in the middle of combat, you are punished for it because that magic is weak compared to the formulaic stuff, and so if you actually need to win the fight you end up using your set menu rather than going a la carte.

Then in downtime you can invent spells, and I know you don't agree with me that the spell invention thing works, but that's largely irrelevant to the point. The point is that you cannot have anything which involves selecting from an extremely long list of possibilities happen in combat, and I think we agree on that. For combat in a game to work, players must have a short enough list of options that they can eyeball them instantly; and swapping this list up needs to happen in downtime.

<a pretty interesting view on multi-tiered character classing>

That sounds very workable.

Once you have the Illusionist and the Bard, do you really need a "Mage/Thief" in addition? It seems that one or both of the fully developed classes could be made to cover the entire spectrum of what a "multiclass" character could do. That being said, even though "multiclassing" does nothing good and isn't even different from writing up a half dozen extra classes - people have been conditioned to clap like seals when it is offered and gnash their teeth when it is not available. So I would definitely announce that the Illusionist (or maybe the Bard, Assassin, or Beguiler) was a "Multiclass Mage/Thief." You really have to write that somewhere even though it makes no structural difference because people will be angry if those magic words don't appear in the book.

I think it's because on some level people view character generation as a separate game, one which you can "win" against the GM or the game designer or the other players or whatever. For a game like that to exist, there has to be the possibility of making a move that your opponent has not anticipated.

For example, you can "win" at D&D chargen by building Pun-Pun because the designer didn't intend that. But you can't "win" at Feng Shui because Robin D. Law wrote the Old Master and the Path of the Broken Dragon and (presumably) considered the two together, and thus taking the Old Master with the Path of the Broken Dragon schticks isn't "winning" because you haven't outwitted Robin D. Laws.

Therefore, for the sort of crowd which enjoys chargen as a game unto itself, multiclassing offers hope of "winning" and simply picking from a charsplosion list does not, because those are all anticipated moves.



...

Hang on. Haaaaaang on.

Limited ability lists, which can be swapped around in downtime.
Classes leading to different tiered classes.
No multiclassing.

Frank... are you advocating 4th Edition D&D?

[Username17]

For example, you can "win" at D&D chargen by building Pun-Pun because the designer didn't intend that. But you can't "win" at Feng Shui because Robin D. Law wrote the Old Master and the Path of the Broken Dragon and (presumably) considered the two together, and thus taking the Old Master with the Path of the Broken Dragon schticks isn't "winning" because you haven't outwitted Robin D. Laws.

Therefore, for the sort of crowd which enjoys chargen as a game unto itself, multiclassing offers hope of "winning" and simply picking from a charsplosion list does not, because those are all anticipated moves.

Leaving aside the fact that Pun-Pun actually isn't legal at all and is based on an interpretation that is so laughable as to be essentially equivalent to spending your 1st level Fighter bonus feat on a custom feat called "I win D&D," I think you maybe on to something. But there's another issue, which I think is important that people do actually want to play Dusk Blades. Clearly, the Dusk Blade is not an unanticipated chargen selection, and yet it does scratch an itch for a very large number of people.

I would say that class systems in general encourage people to think of fields of action as things they want to do, and that being locked out of them creates a sense of desperation. It's like how dogs eat faster when there's another dog who might want to eat their kibble. Wizard players bend over backwards to pick up the ability to heal. Not because it's good, but because it belongs to someone else, and therefore seems important. The ability to swing a sword is nearly meaningless, but once it's been enshrined as the idiom of a class, everyone wants in.

So to a first approximation, I genuinely think that you'd give people what they wanted by announcing that four or five classes were the "basic" classes, and that six of the other classes you were writing up were "hybrid" classes that covered some of the bases of two of the basic classes.

Hang on. Haaaaaang on.

Limited ability lists, which can be swapped around in downtime.
Classes leading to different tiered classes.
No multiclassing.

Frank... are you advocating 4th Edition D&D?

Nope.

4th edition had a lot of problems, one of the most spectacular was how limited peoples ability lists actually were. Of the classes in the original PHB, only one of them has the ability to hotswap any of their abilities, and they just get to choose one of two different "Dailies" each day. It's fucked. But here, let's go over the differences:

Facet	4e D&D	Proposal
Resource Management	All Classes Identical	All Classes Different
Available Starting "Classes"	8	17
Class Divisions	MMO Categories (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader)	Experience Categories (Basic, Hybrid, Expert)
Paragon Selection	Fixed (Fighter -> Pit Fighter, Rogue -> Daggermaster)	Open (Rogue -> Witch King, Illusionist -> Angel Knight, whatever)
Paragon Impact	Minimal (one minor bonus and an attack)	Transformational (new power set, new resource management system)
Available Character Options	Minimal (1 Daily, 1 Encounter, 2 At-Will)	Maximal (characters should have 6-8 combat options to push the limits of option paralysis)

There are a number of ideas that 4e floated before launch which in abstract sounded like good ideas. But obviously moving forward you would definitely not implement anything especially similarly to how 4e actually launched.

-Username17

[Laertes]

It was a cheap shot on my part and you answered it with a well-laid out table. Sir, my taking-the-joke-too-far hat goes off to you.

One query, for the non D&D amongst us: What are "Experience Categories?"

[Koumei]

It's based on how experienced the player is. For instance, in D&D 3E, for a beginner character, you either give them a Sorcerer with spells that you pre-selected for them, or a Barbarian (putting aside the bit where core Barbarians need a specific build to not shrivel up after level 5-ish), you don't give them a Rogue (which needs you to be aware of the map and the battlefield conditions and also "how to make lots of attacks that hit") or a Wizard (which just gives them too many options without the context of what makes which ones good).

Whereas an expert player can make a Wizard that does "everything you could possibly need", or makes a special fighter build that excels at something, or a rogue that takes advantage of all the tricks available.

[Laertes]

So it's a combination of how steep the learning curve is and how quickly the class's potential is maximised? Got you. That sounds like a good idea, a tricky thing to balance and a questionable thing for setting verisimilitude.