Trinity Isles OOC

[Dusk9]

Yeah, no Keen Eye unfortunately. Bugsy does have Compound Eyes though, which basically has the same effect: +3 Accuracy counteracts the negative from the Darkness perfectly.

But I'll probably use the Flash effect next round anyway. I've got 6 uses and 5 mons left, so I might as well start burning through them.

[Dusk9]

Mort, I gave Nate the Dark Brace from Drake. So that Feint Attack would've only done 14 damage pre-evolution.

If you want to retcon the update to say he didn't evolve, that be fine with me (though I'd also be cool if you only changed the damage ).

[M0rtimer]

I'm too lazy to change it now I suppose.

[Dusk9]

To be fair, he only takes 10 damage now. So the evolution did save him a whopping 4hp...

Maybe you could retcon the Sableye to use Shadow Sneak instead? It's less damage (and not auto-hit), but it's also 2x effective.

[M0rtimer]

Maybe, but that'd be "cheating" given that Jack wouldn't have known your held item, wouldn't it?

[Dlover]

It's kinda weird that a person can't inherently recognise a held item. What, are they in little generic baggies?

[Arch Lich Burns]

Only pokemon with frisk would know, and I think that stableye had it.

[M0rtimer]

Honestly, I'd probably allow perception rolls to try and identify if a pokemon is holding any items, but I obviously didn't roll for that.

Also, Frisk is an ability it COULD have.

But Frisk is also just a pretty bad ability.

[Dusk9]

We probably shouldn't make Frisk even worse by having literally anybody be able to identify an Item. Maybe the Perception roll could cost a Swift Action (same as Frisk), but just give a general idea of the item if it's a success, instead of telling you exactly what it's called.

For example, in this case Jack might be able to identify that Nate is holding a Brace, but not the Type of Brace. And the are lots of other items where it isn't immediately obvious what they are - Safety Goggles vs Go-Goggles, Full/Lax/Luck Incense, various Claws or Orbs, Stat Boosters, etc.

[SuperVaderMan]

Frisk is actually a good ability now, via the newest SuMo Basics playtest.

Ability: Frisk
Effect: The user gains a +2 Bonus to all Accuracy Rolls against adjacent targets.

It doesn't let you see the opponent's held item anymore, though

[Arch Lich Burns]

Oh! Mort, what was the gender, nature, level and abilities of the skiddo?

[M0rtimer]

Oops.

Level 22, naughty male skiddo with grass pelt and chlorophyll.

[M0rtimer]

It does kind of matter that the Sableye hit first, since Nate has Teleport. If the Sableye had hit after Nate, I'd have just dodged the attack. But now I can't without losing the Dazzling Gleam damage.

Actually, I guess you are right, but only depending on turn order- I'd be fine with allowing you to just re-use the roll if you'd prefer, which would only mean you'd get to use dazzling gleam next round.

BUT with that said, I think for convenience sake we had also simply ruled that, regardless of proper initiative, interrupts were simply triggered by sacrificing your next turns action rather than removing the one you had done currently? So you could teleport now and block the damage from this turn, but the sableye would get a "free attack" on his turn.

Basically there's two scenario's with this ruling which make things a bit easier rather than "retcon the whole turn":
A and B both attack each other, A and B are both left standing at the end of the turn, B wants to interrupt the damage- B gets the damage done removed, A stays damaged, but B does not get to act next turn.

A and B both attack each other. A knocks out B. B wants to interrupt. B is (probably) no longer unconscious.

[Arch Lich Burns]

I'm going to teach it attack conflict right now....before I forget.

EDIT: Skiddo has vine whip so I now have a neat way of traveling.

[Dusk9]

Interrupts, by RAW, always use your next Action. So if you've not attacked yet, you Interrupt instead of attacking. And if you have already acted that round, then it takes up next turns Action.

What you're suggesting does work most of the time, but not in cases where B KO's A. In that scenario, B gets to knock out A while negating their attack, and only loses their next turn (which might be against a weaker opponent). And if A was their last opponent then there isn't even a downside, since that's the end of the fight.

I say we stick with the RAW honestly. Retconning turns can get annoying, sure. But it stops weird outliers from happening.

---------------------------

Speaking of Attack Conflict, if I teach it to Nate later then I'm allowed to redistribute his ATK stats in other stuff right?

[Arch Lich Burns]

Sableye has shadow sneak, which is a priority move, so it would act first and Nate loose his turn that round after teleporting.

[M0rtimer]

Actually, you're missing that the solution I'm proposing is just going based on altering as little of the previous update as possible- If B would have knocked out A, it doesn't matter, because I'm ONLY reverting the damage done to B- And potentially allowing you to retry the damage on the next round. I'm basically only waiving that you'd have to waive a move on your current turn.

Anyways, fair enough, we can retcon the turn... Which would probably mean that right now you'd be flying 6 meters up, and avoided the damage? I'd allow you to retry the same dazzling gleam damage this round if you do.

[Dusk9]

Actually, I'm fine with keeping it as it is now. There's no real difference between dodging the Shadow Sneak last turn or this turn.

I know your proposal benefits me and is good for minimal retconning in this situation. I'm just worried about how it might work in other cases in the future.

[Dlover]

Mn, Dusk isn't wrong. I'm in favour of keeping the minimal retcon in place, but if it's a scenario where say both pokemon are at the point of being KO'd in one hit, the one with a protection interrupt wins.

[M0rtimer]

Firstly, I'd like to ask myself why I keep doing this to myself.

You guys can post for your update as well as vote, btw. Christmas is slowly approaching though, so I'm guessing a lot of us will be a bit preoccupied in the coming week(s) anyways, so updates might slow down a bit regardless.

Secondly, in response to Dlover and in lesser extent to Dusk:

Not really though. Hold on, let me expand on the scenario... I think the issue is mostly in that I am not one hundred percent correctly managing to relay just what I am changing. Pokemon B will always be the one with some manner of protection in these scenarios.

Scenario 1:
A attacks first, but does not knock out B. B attacks A.
End of turn: both pokemon are damaged, nobody knocked out. Next turn, interrupt is activated to remove the damage on B with no issues. This scenario stays the same even if B were to attack first.

Scenario 2:
A is going to knock out B, but B attacks first. B deals damage to A, then uses his next turn to block the damage that A would have done- This is the raw interpretation currently.

Scenario 3:
A is going to hit B, but B attacks first and knocks out the enemy. No interrupt was ever necessary, since the enemy is KO'd before they could use a move.

Scenario 4 (Probably the edge-case where our confusion/misunderstandings starts):
A is going to knock out B, and acts first. At the end of the round, B is knocked out, and hence dealt no damage. The interrupt is activated, on the same turn since he did not get to act, and restored back to conscious status.

So it's not really a case of "the one with interrupt wins"- It's just always been a case of who gets to act first, really, as scenario 3/4 would demonstrate. It's possible I'm missing something, but I don't think this ruling would ever end up in a position where one side has the "disadvantage..?"

[Dlover]

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

Also, I found Marshadow, guys. He may or may not be eating my soul. We'll see how that works out.

[SuperVaderMan]

I'll pick glasses man, because dramatic lighting

► Show Spoiler

Also the lore was neat

[Natrivv]

Well just bite back. I'm sure the marshmellow looking body can't taste too horrible.

Voting for Nurse

[Dlover]

I definitely won't hesitate to eat Marshmallow if necessary (And maybe even become a Usurper in the process :o ), the question is whether Alex can actually manage such a feat. On one hand, Marshmallow has only just awoken from its ancient slumber. On the other hand, it managed that awakening by consuming most of Alex's life force, which isn't an inconsiderable amount, considering how much he's managed to survive and make a complete recovery from).

Alternatively: Alex tried to use bite, but he doesn't know that move!


Also, something I found: If you're using the Version Dunsparce sheet, Copy Master starts with "Copycat's Frequency is Scene." That's not in the book. Don't trust it.

[Dusk9]

► Show Spoiler

Secondly, in response to Dlover and in lesser extent to Dusk:

Not really though. Hold on, let me expand on the scenario... I think the issue is mostly in that I am not one hundred percent correctly managing to relay just what I am changing. Pokemon B will always be the one with some manner of protection in these scenarios.

Scenario 1:
A attacks first, but does not knock out B. B attacks A.
End of turn: both pokemon are damaged, nobody knocked out. Next turn, interrupt is activated to remove the damage on B with no issues. This scenario stays the same even if B were to attack first.

Scenario 2:
A is going to knock out B, but B attacks first. B deals damage to A, then uses his next turn to block the damage that A would have done- This is the raw interpretation currently.

Scenario 3:
A is going to hit B, but B attacks first and knocks out the enemy. No interrupt was ever necessary, since the enemy is KO'd before they could use a move.

Scenario 4 (Probably the edge-case where our confusion/misunderstandings starts):
A is going to knock out B, and acts first. At the end of the round, B is knocked out, and hence dealt no damage. The interrupt is activated, on the same turn since he did not get to act, and restored back to conscious status.

So it's not really a case of "the one with interrupt wins"- It's just always been a case of who gets to act first, really, as scenario 3/4 would demonstrate. It's possible I'm missing something, but I don't think this ruling would ever end up in a position where one side has the "disadvantage..?"

You're forgetting cases where A goes first but gets KO'd.

Scenario 5:
A attacks first, but B knocks out A with their attack. Scenario 2 shows that B would deal damage to A (and KO them) while using their next action to block the damage.

Scenario 6:
A attacks first, A and B both KO each other. B can block the damage that would KO them, and then immediately KO A. Whereas by RAW, the turn would basically be nullified and A would have another shot at KOing B (assuming they still act first next round).

Scenario 5 is problematic for a few reasons;
1) If A is the final opponent, then B can dodge the damage without penalty. Using up your next action doesn't matter if combat is over.
2) A isn't the final opponent, but their replacement C is weaker against B. B can swap the more powerful attack of A for C's weaker attack.
3) If A and B both use EOT or lower freq moves, B gets to hit with theirs while putting A's "on cooldown". And if B's attack was higher than Scene freq (e.g. EOT), Scene x2, etc), then it will be "off-cooldown" faster.

And Scenario 6 has the same issues, with the added problem of A getting at least one fewer chance to KO B.

Now, you can fix this by saying that, in any case where A went first but was KO'd, B would have to choose between blocking the damage and making the attack against A (following RAW). But that's inconsistent with the other examples.

-------------------------------------------

Anyway, I vote Nurse. Probably about time we did honestly. Hasn't she been available from the first intermission?