SKR quotables

[hogarth]

Yeah.......but I was rather amazed at his article on Ex/Su removal notion, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was also amazed by how dumb the premise of his Ex/Su removal notion was. "If there are people who don't like giving fighters nice things, they can be fooled with a bottle of Wite-Out!"

[Aryxbez]

I agree its a dumb premise, but apparently trickery is the go-to path to getting the RPG fans to listen, so we all get what we want. I feel like RPG fans are foolish enough to be fooled by such a minor change, as they hang heavy onto flavor of a given option, especially class names.

Speaking of, has anyone else been paying any heed to SKR's Blog as of late? I've been involving myself in discussion w/ the project (including Kickstarter premiering Tuesday/Sept 23rd), hoping to see it going in a good direction. So far, it's getting quite concerning to say the least, and while there's some implied well intentions, the execution is spelling its doom.

Such as how 1st level equivalent PC's are 1-3 in his 25lv game, dislikes PC's starting w/16-20's at all, & be making values quite small, retaining their meaning (as should feel its "good enough"). Hates Optimization, and also considering doing base AC 5. Also, he seems to defer to some defenses as "hasn't been done before, so shouldn't be done as people would freak out", for a NEW GAME, and seems to get hung up on flavor (regardless if its reality in the ruleset).

[OgreBattle]

I think some people "role play with their character sheet", in that they see what's written on the sheet as the spine of their roleplaying. So if something says "supernatural" then they're going to throw a fit about it because "I'm a mundane swordsman I can't be supernatural!!". Even 4e got grief for the rather minor detail of "they replaced feet with SQUARES, IT'S AN MMO NOW!!"

I wonder how SKR rationalizes boosting in a 'simulationist' world though, like has anyone told him "WHat do you MEAN stone giants can only catch rocks FIVE TIMES a day, are you telling me they CANT PLAY BASEBALL WHAT IS THIS MMO BULLSHIT"?

[OgreBattle]

The Meaning of Ability Scores
It’s subtly hidden in the game rules, but did you know that increasing an ability score by +5 means the creature is twice as good at that ability score as an unmodified character?

In other words, a character with 15 Strength is twice as strong as a character with 10 Strength. Check the Carrying Capacity table for proof… a Str 10 has a light load up to 33 lbs., medium for 34–66 lbs, and heavy at 67–100… and a Str 15 character has double those values (light up to 66, medium 67–133, heavy 134–200, if you account for rounding differences). This repeats for every +5 ability score points (Str 20 is twice as strong as Str 15, Str 25 is twice as strong as Str 30, and so on). Let’s think about that in real-world terms.

Let’s look at some bench press stats from ExRx.net for adult males at various body weights. According to this site, an untrained guy about my weight (181 pounds) should be able to bench press 130 pounds (FYI, no, I can’t). The site also says an “advanced” man of that body weight should be able to bench press 275 pounds, which is a little over double what the untrained guy can do. So we could classify the average person as Str 10 (which makes sense), and an “advanced” man at Str 15 (twice as strong as the average).

According to the ExRex.net chart, an “elite” weight trainer should be able to bench press about 345 pounds, which is only 1.25x the “advanced” value, so we can classify that person at about Str 17 (the max weight capacity of a Str 17 character is 1.25x that of a Str 15 character).

Keep in mind that the bench press world record was 363 pounds from 1898 (when the International Powerlifting Federation was founded) to until about 1950. Bench pressing 363 pounds is 1.3x the advanced man’s 275 pounds, and 1.3x times the (Str 15) advanced man’s heavy load of 200 pounds is 260 pounds, which is the max heavy load of Str 17.

(That also doesn’t take into account that Doug Hepburn, the 1950 record-breaker, weighed 300 pounds and should be able to press proportionately more than a 180 pound man, so the above stats are actually being very generous to an “average” person’s strength estimates.)

To be fair, we’re just looking at one aspect of human strength, but my point is this: for a very long time, the strongest human was less 3 times as strong as the average human. In D&D terms, the strongest human up until 1950 had Strength 17. Using point-buy for your ability scores, you could buy a 15 Strength, and then use your “+2 to one stat” for being human, half-elf, or half-orc, and get a 1st-level character who is as strong as the strongest human for half of the 20th century. And that’s without boosts from magic or +1-every-four-levels.

Isn’t that… weird?

If you instead did that to your character’s Intelligence score, you’d get a 1st-level character who is as smart as the smartest human for half of the 20th century. “Hi, I’m 1st-level, I’m as smart as Albert Einstien.”

Think about that the next time you build a new 1st-level character and decide that a 15 in their primary stat “isn’t good enough”… you’re saying that a 1st-level character who’s at the peak of human ability isn’t good enough… because the +2 bonus from that stat isn’t as good as the +3 you’d get for a 16 or 17.

I wonder how many orcs Einstein killed to get an 18 INT.

[erik]

And outside of the lifting ability stats mean dick, excepting their bonus. Einstein does worse than a 8 intelligence character having >5 skill ranks higher. Carrying capacity is just barely this side of flavor text. Nobody cares what it is most of the time.

I would torment people in living greyhawk with the same stupid notions with my 8 charisma character having the best diplomacy in the party. A +2 bonus is pittance.

If anything SKR is inadvertently making a case for attributes being fucked and their relation to bonuses needing divorced because they totally do not match.

[Sam]

My wizard is better at casting spells than literally all humans who have ever lived. Is that a problem now?

[ishy]

Is he trying to argue that starting with a 15 in your ability score is fine because you can start with 17 if you're the proper race?

They don’t matter for stat penalties in PF because the rule is based on even numbers of an ability score damage/drain/penalty (instead of what number it brings your score to).

SKR apparently does not know how ability drain works in PF.

[RufusCorvus]

Why is he using the bench press as a benchmark? Sure, it's the most common image people have about bodybuilders, but a better measure of overall body strength would be deadlifts or squats.

Measuring by deadlifts seems easier since the Lifting and Dragging rules mention "A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it." which sounds like a deadlift to me.

In which case, this guy, has a Strength of about 22.

[8d8]

Is SKR saying that a D&D character should be realistic? Is he saying I need to stop wanting to play people who are really, really good at things? Or is he saying that the measuring tools in D&D are stupid? Man, if I'm playing a strong, brawny dood then I want him to be able to bench press the back end of an F150 for fun. My buddy is playing a guy who can eventually turn into a friggin lion, and I want to eventually swing uprooted trees around as clubs because I'm the Hulk now. Yes, I want my Str score to go to 40, screw your comparison to Hulk Hogan with my level 10 barbarian - no real human has ever been level 10.

Why is he using the bench press as a benchmark? Sure, it's the most common image people have about bodybuilders, but a better measure of overall body strength would be deadlifts or squats.

Measuring by deadlifts seems easier since the Lifting and Dragging rules mention "A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it." which sounds like a deadlift to me.

In which case, this guy, has a Strength of about 22.

You are applying D&D rules to real world metrics to determine an ability score. SKR applied the comparative difference between real world metrics to see how they conformed to D&D rules then extrapolated how human limits should be viewed in a D&D world. Those are two very different things. In other words, he looked up average human stats, assumed that the "10 = average" metric in D&D should be applied there, and then went to town. You did the opposite, finding D&D stats and applying them to real world people. Go find some deadlift numbers for average and advanced strengths and tell us what multiplier to apply to the advanced weights, then compare those to D&D's metrics. I'm not going to bother doing it, but my guess is that your results won't be far off from SKR's.

[Pixels]

Carrying capacity is uniquely on an exponential scale because... well, because 3.5e did it and the Pathfinder guys didn't want to rock the boat. It has always been a bit of an anomaly, and because it scaled so fast the moment something appeared that scaled with carrying capacity, it was abused like heck. Hello there, Hulking Hurler.

What it certainly is not is a reflection of any other mechanic based on stats. +5 intelligence does not double my spellcasting capacity. +5 constitution does not double my hit points. Heck, even +5 strength doesn't double my damage, even though double mass -> double force -> double damage would not be an unreasonable assumption to make for bludgeoning weapons. Trying to reason about stats from carrying capacity is specious.

[souran]

Whats even worse about this whole thing is that SKR is basically correct that what d20/3.x D&D needs is for people to start thinking about what constitutes "exceptional" or "high" stats differently.

d20 D&D would be better if playing 16/15/14/12/10/8 characters didn't make you feel ineffective or weak. With 3.x math, starting with an 18 or a 20 pisses all over the difficulty curve.

And honestly, the 3-18 stats doesn't actually represent anything except rolling 3d6 for stats. If characters from 1 and 2e had stats ranging from 4-16 generated by rolling 4d4 people would think that getting 16s was really good and a +3 mod would seem very powerful.

However, if you let people have +4/+5 then people are going to have those stats and then the optimization arms race starts.

If SKR wants people to be happy with a 16/+3 score then don't let people have stats fucking higher than 16. Nobody gives 2 fucking shits that a 16 or a 17 strength allows you to achieve olympic level results. If you make 18 the best starting value, then you should assume that anybody who wants to be "good" at thing X WILL have an 18. Your simulation or abstraction is fucking pointless compared to player psychology which mandates that the only "good enough" is "best"

[Schleiermacher]

Your simulation or abstraction is fucking pointless compared to player psychology which mandates that the only "good enough" is "best"

Bull. Shit. If people are that immature I don't want to play RPGs with them.
Fortunately, in my experience if you explain the system benchmarks to them up front, only a few people actually have any problem building to concept or understanding the difference between "appropriate level" and "hard upper limit" (assuming of course that you're playing a game that allows people that degree of control over their characters' stats -which doesn't really describe any edition of D&D.) And it goes both ways - a GM must not be too paranoid to accept that okay, if the character creation caps allow that and it fits the concept, maybe the best liar in the world is one of the PCs. And then of course he must not shit all over that by making all the villains world champion cold readers.

Now what I do agree with is that the 3-18 stats as used in D&D don't actually represent anything except rolling 3d6 for stats. As mentioned, D&D in general doesn't feature much in the way of "building to concept", it tends to be played in a much more... accumulatory style. I think that's annoying but it's a pretty minor annoyance even as far as gaming goes.

[Ravengm]

Your simulation or abstraction is fucking pointless compared to player psychology which mandates that the only "good enough" is "best"

Bull. Shit. If people are that immature I don't want to play RPGs with them.

If your character concept is "good at lying", then you just max out the relevant stat unless there's significant reason not to. It doesn't matter if the cap is 12, 16, or 47; while in chargen, the player is going to pump the shit out of their CHA because that is what they want to do well.

[K]

Your simulation or abstraction is fucking pointless compared to player psychology which mandates that the only "good enough" is "best"

Bull. Shit. If people are that immature I don't want to play RPGs with them.

If your character concept is "good at lying", then you just max out the relevant stat unless there's significant reason not to. It doesn't matter if the cap is 12, 16, or 47; while in chargen, the player is going to pump the shit out of their CHA because that is what they want to do well.

When you set up a system of attributes where the difference in starting attributes can be the difference between whole levels, people understandably want to max stats. A 1st level character in DnD with a 18 is basically as good at the same skill s a 3rd level with a 14-15, and that shit hurts when you hold up level as your advancement system.

The problem gets worse when you toss in critically important stats like attack bonus and DCs. Telling someone that a 14 is good enough for spell DCs when another character with the right race has a 20 and is getting a +3 bonus really hurts when the only way to boost DCs is burning a truly wasteful number of feats of which you get very few.

DnD has shit chargen in every version. I think it's time to accept that legacy nonsense is always going to doom it to being shit.

[Aryxbez]

The Kickstarter was released today. Assuming it funds, I intend to take part in it, playtest it (ideally feedback won't be ignored), and probably give ya'll some rage-filled review when its a finished product.

What immediately raises an eyebrow, is the fact it has Monster Manual....AS A STRETCH GOAL.

Is SKR saying that a D&D character should be realistic?

In a way, it's part of his irrationality, as well as his adhering to legacy BS. Although his game is supporting "Rule of cool" discarding reality when it doesn't suit the game supposedly.

In other words, the game ignores Earth physics when Earth physics gets in the way of cool stuff being in the campaign.

[Schleiermacher]

If your character concept is "good at lying", then you just max out the relevant stat unless there's significant reason not to.

No! That's exactly what you don't do, because "good" =/= "best there is or ever could be". So if your character concept is only "good at lying", in a game with extensive benchmarks I expect you to control your hunger for high stats and respect the correspondence between numbers and in-game reality, because if that goes out the window the game becomes incoherent and the stats become completely meaningless.

Two caveats to this:
1. Of course, there's nothing wrong with instead going for the concept "greatest liar in the world." That's the flip side of the coin and then the onus to respect the correspondence between the numbers and the fiction is on the GM and the other players. E.g: the same skill benchmarks also apply to Insight or Empathy or whatever you call it, so people who can catch you in a well-timed bluff should be few and far between, and there can't be more than one "best liar in the world" -possibly a rival claimant or two, but they're not going to pop out of the woodwork to bedevil you in the first session.

2. If a game doesn't have sufficient benchmarks to give you context for the stats and what particular numbers mean, then none of the above applies. Notably this describes all editions of D&D. (You could derive such benchmarks in 3.x, which is extensive and consistent enough to give you a framework to build on, but you'd have to change a lot of DCs and monster writeups to avoid absurd results that way. It's probably more workable to just embrace relativism.)

It doesn't matter if the cap is 12, 16, or 47; while in chargen, the player is going to pump the shit out of their CHA because that is what they want to do well.

If the cap for ability scores is 47, but the game tells you that 12 is notably above human average and 16 is the highest a human can get without using magic, superpowers or some sort of external enhancement, then:

(0. The game has a really weird scale)

1. A merely "good" human liar should probably not have a higher CHA than 12 and definitely no higher than 15, except possibly if he were a generalist of all applications of Charisma and not especially focused on lying.

2. The best "pure" human liar in the world should likely have a 16 CHA, and should not under any circumstances have more -he might have less if he's specialized in lying only and not other applications of Charisma, but he probably should have at least 12 and he definitely shouldn't be built as "CHA 3, maximum ranks in all forms of Bluff specialization abilities" just because Charisma is otherwise a dump stat and that's the most efficient way to do it.

3. A character with a CHA of 17 or higher must have some sort of conceptual explanation for why he's superhumanly charismatic, even if it's just "is a race with slightly higher Charisma than humans". Of course if that's the explanation, his Charisma should not be higher than 18 or so and being that charismatic makes him just as extraordinary among his own people as the CHA 16 human.

4. A character with a CHA of 47 is at the maximum possible Charisma not just for his kind, but that anyone in the game can have. Or, at least, anyone who can be built as a starting character. (And when the margin between "human maximum benchmark" and "hard cap" is that wide, this system probably gives you a lot of flexibility in what you can make.) His conceptual justification for that score should be suitably impressive.

Numbers mean things. That's why we use them instead of playing Cops and Robbers.

[ACOS]

If PCs are expected to operate within a certain range, then cap the range. If the characters are expected to operate within a certain sub-set of a certain range, then put a hard cap on the PC sub-range - that sub-/vs/full- range would even help to form some proper perspective.
But if you don't put any hard caps and let the #s accumulate indefinitely, then there's nothing to bitch about when players decide they want to climb as far up that scale as they can. A significant # of people enjoy the "power fantasy", and will flex that desire to the fullest extent that the game allows. Does it go over the top sometimes? Sure. But you can't get mad a player for operating within the confines of what the game tells him is possible.

[souran]

Numbers mean things. That's why we use them instead of playing Cops and Robbers.

Sorry but this is just fucking wrong. The numbers don't MEAN anything. If you want to play a "good liar" in a game you have exactly 2 ways of going about doing it:

1) select character options and make choices that result in you achieving success on rolls to lie to people as often as possible. Honestly, the opportunity to tell lies that effect the game is going to come up only a finite number of times a session. If you have not maximized your chances of succeeding on EVERY ROLL then your character will not come across as a compotent liar. This is so fucking obvious that literal children can figure out this level of optimization.

2) You suck the GMs cock and roleplay the lying to get yourself a circumstance bonus based on your actual personal ability to act and lie. Now, this is actually fine if thats how your group plays, but it doesn't transfer table to table.

Having a 16 in a stat does not make me feel good. Succeeding at the shit I build my characters to suceed at makes me feel good.

[Schleiermacher]

If PCs are expected to operate within a certain range, then cap the range. If the characters are expected to operate within a certain sub-set of a certain range, then put a hard cap on the PC sub-range - that sub-/vs/full- range would even help to form some proper perspective.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The player chooses what subset of the range he wants his PC to operate in based on his character concept. A human warrior's Strength cap is less than a giant's cap, which is less than a demigod's cap.

Odysseus and Hercules are both potential PCs, and both have "is a good fighter" as part of their character concept, but if Odysseus is as strong as Hercules -or even close- the game is incoherent. Hercules is vastly stronger than Odysseus, Odysseus makes up for it in other ways and has a different fighting style. They're both capable of defeating giants, each in their own way.

If you have not maximized your chances of succeeding on EVERY ROLL then your character will not come across as a compotent liar. This is so fucking obvious that literal children can figure out this level of optimization.

"If you are less capable at anything than the maximum it is possible to be you are not actually any good at that thing."

That's not "fucking obvious", that's fucking ridiculous. If you have +15 to Bluff and the average NPC walks around with +0-6 in Sense Motive, you are a good liar and you don't stop being a good liar just because the Bard in the party knows Glibness and can get to +40.* Just like Odysseus can hang with Hercules on adventures and doesn't become any less of a mighty hero or cunning wrestler where other people are concerned just because he has no chance to arm-wrestle the son of Zeus.

*This should not be taken as an endorsement of Glibness spesifically or the 3E skill system generally.

[Whipstitch]

The part you're missing is that no player gives even a tiny fleck of shit about how impressive a character is relative to Dennis the shit covered peasant. Players are too busy noticing that they're liable to get their shit ruined if they try faffing about with trip attacks and bullrushes on a 14 strength character. It's D&D so there's fucking owlbears and hyena men to worry about out there. A lot of things in D&D are risky fucking maneuvers--you're probably not even going to attempt conning people to begin with if you don't think the odds are stacked pretty firmly in your favor or your have been backed in a corner.

[souran]

If you have not maximized your chances of succeeding on EVERY ROLL then your character will not come across as a compotent liar. This is so fucking obvious that literal children can figure out this level of optimization.

"If you are less capable at anything than the maximum it is possible to be you are not actually any good at that thing."

That's not "fucking obvious", that's fucking ridiculous. If you have +15 to Bluff and the average NPC walks around with +0-6 in Sense Motive, you are a good liar and you don't stop being a good liar just because the Bard in the party knows Glibness and can get to +40.* Just like Odysseus can hang with Hercules on adventures and doesn't become any less of a mighty hero or cunning wrestler where other people are concerned just because he has no chance to arm-wrestle the son of Zeus.

*This should not be taken as an endorsement of Glibness spesifically or the 3E skill system generally.

Actually, thats exactly what it means because if you have a +15 and the Bard has a +40 then unless the bard is dead, transformed into a form that cannot speak, or in a different physical location than your PC your opportunities to present yourself as a component liar have been reduced to 0.

Even your own fucking example proves this. In the Illiad, where odysseuss is like the 15th best fucking warrior on greek side NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT HIS FIGHTING ABILITY. Seriously, in the Illiad Odeysseus is literally "the smart guy" because next to Ajax and Achilles and Hector and on and on he is not tough. He does all the smart guy shit and exactly 0 tough or strong or brave guy shit.

If odyessus and Heracules were hanging out (they don't in any mythological work but we can go with it) and somebody challenges Odyessus to an arm wrestling contest he doesn't actually participate himself (even though he has a bow that takes 10 other men to string), he has Herc wear his cloak to trick the other contestant and then lets them get their ass handed to them by the strongest man ever. Because when they hang out Odeyssus handles the smart guy shit and Herc handles the strong guy shit.

This is basically how D&D parties work. Being the "second best" at a function in a 3.x group is to be more useless as a bag of extra Ikea parts.

[Schleiermacher]

The part you're missing is that no player gives even a tiny fleck of shit about how impressive a character is relative to Dennis the shit covered peasant. (...) It's D&D so there's fucking owlbears and hyena men to worry about out there.

I'm not missing that. I already said:

If a game doesn't have sufficient benchmarks to give you context for the stats and what particular numbers mean, then none of the above applies. Notably this describes all editions of D&D.

(Emphasis in the original, but re-emphasised to be more legible in a quote tag.)

I also said I think that's a bit annoying, but ultimately not a big deal and something you just deal with by adopting a relativist and accumulatory mindset -just like you're saying. In a more consistent game, the owlbears and hyena men would be statted with reference to the exact same benchmarks and everything would fit together neatly, but if we're talking D&D spesifically they're not and they don't and that is, ultimately, okay.

[Schleiermacher]

Actually, thats exactly what it means because if you have a +15 and the Bard has a +40 then unless the bard is dead, transformed into a form that cannot speak, or in a different physical location than your PC your opportunities to present yourself as a component liar have been reduced to 0.

Or maybe you have relevant information the Bard doesn't have, or an agenda that doesn't involve him, or a contact that won't give the Bard the time of day, or you're trying to trick someone in the middle of combat and he's busy with his own opponent, and on and on... heck, maybe he's the one you're trying to fool!

This is basically how D&D parties work. Being the "second best" at a function in a 3.x group is to be more useless as a bag of extra Ikea parts.

No redundancy, no synergies, no view to self-sufficiency, no intraparty rivalries? That's... very far from my own experience.

If the specialist is standing there ready, able and willing to do the job, sure, leave it to him. But that's a luxury you don't always have.

If Odysseus had his way he'd leave the arm-wrestling to Hercules, but if some beef-witted upstart wants satisfaction right now and there's no time for any cloak switching, he can confidently take up the challenge knowing that he's as strong as any ten lesser men. Many less well-rounded tricksters could not. That's not without value, but more to the point, it makes a difference in how the character interacts with the world -and having our characters interact with the world and accomplish things (or not) in distinctive ways is what playing RPGs is all about, isn't it?

(Edit: Sorry about the double post, souran posted while I was writing my previous post.)

[ACOS]

If PCs are expected to operate within a certain range, then cap the range. If the characters are expected to operate within a certain sub-set of a certain range, then put a hard cap on the PC sub-range - that sub-/vs/full- range would even help to form some proper perspective.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The player chooses what subset of the range he wants his PC to operate in based on his character concept. A human warrior's Strength cap is less than a giant's cap, which is less than a demigod's cap.

You're putting the onus on the wrong thing. Yes, the player can be pleased with being the strongest/smartest/prettiest character to have ever walked that planet; however, as long as there is incentive to increase his ability, and the game continues to allow those increases, then the player is still going to continue to try to increase his ability. This is just the nature of human motivation. This isn't some failure of moral character on the part of the player; this is just the player playing the game the way that the game tells him to play it. (and please don't reference loophole exploitation - that would just be bad form ... just sayin')
And then we have you sitting there saying that the player has some sort of ethical responsibility to impose his own arbitrary limit on his character's advancement based on your personal aesthetic tastes.
If the game puts a hard cap on abilities because it expects that PCs will remain within the realm of "normal" for the entirety of the game, that's fine. Similarly, if the game expects that the PCs turn in to Supers (and just admit it, D&D is a Supers game past 6th level), then yes, the players are going to do what the game tells them and act like a Super.

If a stat of "16" is what you want to be "good enough", that's fine; but you need to play games wherein that is actually viable (in which case, post-6th-level D&D is certainly not the game for you).

[Dogbert]

no view to self-sufficiency,

Alas, this is d&d we're talking about. Challenges scale with level, so unless you keep devoting resources on a skill in order to keep it "level relevant," it becomes obsolete and your investment is wasted. You only get so many chargen resources, so if you're going to keep investing, you might as well aim for being the best you can be at that.

If the specialist is standing there ready, able and willing to do the job, sure, leave it to him. But that's a luxury you don't always have.

Redundancy and not keeping all your eggs in the same basket... okay, that I can understand.

But then, I think what Souran is talking about is niches. Your Justice League can have two guys who run fast, but only one gets to be The Flash, and only one gets the bragging rights and title as "fastest man alive" that brings.

Flash is a cop and can do some basic detective work (and decent forensics), but such little bit of trivia was only relevant in one out of 20 issues of the New 52 Justice League. If that was a game, I don't need my GMing skills or my HR skills to tell you Flash' player would feel cheated by now about having wasted resources in something that would turn out to be completely irrelevant. Most non-basket weaving players would in that situation.

Or maybe you have relevant information the Bard doesn't have, or an agenda that doesn't involve him, or a contact that won't give the Bard the time of day,

All of these, however, are phoney VAH solutions that depend on the GMing arbitrarily nerfing the Bard so you don't feel small in the pants, and so irrelevant for an actual discussion of a system.

And then, this all is rather a parenthesis on the actual topic of... dammit, I had already managed to forget it, it's sad to see what became of the mind who thought MCWoD's effects-oriented magic (which no one here likes, I know, but I did, as big of a kludge as it was).