inkblob said:

Not necessarily. Base Talisman has multitude rules, spaces and opportunities. You have to learn them before you can play with some measure of planning and strategy. At first everybody will be a little lost with any new expansion but after a game or two everyone will remember what they like best and where to get it.

JCHendee said:

Yeah. It makes more sense since reward for Quest is always the same. With abilities I thought more of a choice similar to: "I'm going to the Blacksmith to buy Sword/Armour/Axe or I'm going to the Alchemist to change some junk into gold". If you know what is available and where you just concentrate on getting there.

JCHendee said:

Fair enough. Limited resources rule like with Purchase or Talisman cards.

JCHendee said:

I thought of multiple Rule Cards but maybe an old fashioned A4 (letter for US) rule sheet would be in order.

JCHendee said:

By reading rule sheet. One don't have to memorize it, just have an idea what the choices are and where, more or less, are they available. I can't recall where to buy sword but I know that I need a Blacksmith and he's either in the City or in Village - quick check of the board does the rest. Problem with avoiding space instructions is easily solved by ruling that one have to encounter a given space regardless of getting new ability or not. That gives You/us more flexibility in naming the locations to get an ability. It could be Black Knight or Desert or Chasm and it wouldn't take the peril of those places away

JCHendee said:

I took those figures from the top of my head. I just thought the special abilities shouldn't be too easy or cheap to obtain. I'm trying very hard to contain my inner munchkin. I would like nothing better than having all of those abilities at once but I know all too well how that would spoil the whole fun of playing. OK. Let's scratch out missing 2 turns so after paying the gold one could learn ability on the fly.

JCHendee said:

Yes! I do have preferences Battle Mastry, Weapon Mastery, Battle Tactics, Vampirism, Battle-Craft, Foretelling, Fields Way (possibly expanded), Pathfinding (my version if not too powerfull) or Reconnoiter (see the pattern here? )

Yea, I see your pattern, you warrior undead despot!

I created a rough draft of a new card template - very rough - halfway between the motif of a character card and the other smaller cards in the game. Card backs can wait until we're sure this is going to amount to something. I'm just throw something into them template to display a sample card. Do not consider the details of this card to be final!

Version #1 is based on Felis' idea of a standard "Location" to go pay the "Cost" for taking the card, and then "Conditions" to fulfill before the ability can be used.

Version #2 is based on my notion of a random draw, then a "Location" to reach after you have the "Cost," and any "Conditions" for when/how you pay the Cost at the Location.

NOTE: I change my mind about the location listed in the PDF. If an adventurer can get Strength "skill" tokens on the run for trophies, then a mass of them turned in at once could also be used another way. Applying trophies from Battle to gain Strength "skill" points for all things done with Strength is very hinky, though necessary for Talisman. This way, Battle experience actually gets you more edge in Battle (by probabilities) through "Battle Mastery"; but behind this is the price of not getting two Strength points/tokens for trophies. A give and take approach for the advantage.

ADDENDUM: These are reduced for display; right-click and View or Save to see them at full 300ppi.

As usual Your "very rough draft" is another's man masterpiece . I'm actually surprised how much space there is on the card. Maybe it won't be so crowded afterall.

I'm not sure if I follow You in the version #2. It seems to me that in this variant abilities (at least some of them) would be picked up on the fly in course of normal play. One gathers so many trophies, one kills something and "bam" he's Battle Master. If so that seems just too easy. After a dosen or two rounds everybody would have the same characters with different names and miniatures. Unless I'm missing something... In my mind one should go out of one's way to get special ability. Yes, it might be too gruelling for some younger (coughteenagecough) players but it would help keep some diversity among characters. And besides going somewhere and paying for the lessons makes more sense to this old, senile roleplayer .

I like the version #2.

I look forward to see what abilities you guys will make availeble. I have a sugestion for how to gain the Evade ability (if that will be one of them).

Cost: 14 pts. of craft trophies.

Location: Any Adventure card draw space.

Conditions: After evading an enemy by paying the cost.

I think I am with Felis about making them a bit more of a "Quest" to obtain. Go here, do that, get this... type of thing.

I also think the "Location/Cost/Conditions" section is a little "busy". It would probably be a bit more pleasing to the eye (and the Purchase card idea) by having icons for cost, location and conditions.

talismanisland said:

Actually you could mix the ideas... Why not ?

I like what Jon sugested with icons instead of text.

Felis said:

Felis said:

Oh boy... I'm going to be long-winded again. It's sort of the difference between the way Quests were first implemented and how they are now generally played. Originally, you land on the Warlock's Cave and pick (not draw) a Quest card. Most players just picked on they could cash out immediately, utterly destroying the "quest" in Talisman's "a magically quest." It is one of the most lame implementations I have every seen for trying to speed up the game. Most groups abandoned it and went to random draw.

#2 is for the random draw approach. Location is where "go to" in order to "pay" the Cost of acquiring the ability according to any Conditions listed. Abilities cards would be drawn based on "trigger" events, such as when a "wish," Fate, etc. is offered. Other triggers could be addedl, such as particular spaces. I had originally imagined three decks (Strength, Craft, General/Other) - that may be too much for some tastes. Strength based would have one space, Craft based another, and Other/General could be drawn on two designated spaces. And when another form of trigger occurs, a player could choose which one to draw form. The triggers (events, spaces, or others) might be listed in the rules in preferred order. Any group of players could choose how many triggers they want to have in their game.

In version #1, Location is where you go to "pick" an Ability; Cost is what you pay to take that card but not activite the Ability then. Conditions show what must be done to then activate the Ability. This approach is sort of the inverse of the original Quests; you do pick the Ability, but in most cases you will not have the Cost on you, unless... some players learn the cards, get what's needed first, then get the card and pay for it... unless Conditions require them to go somewhere else first. It's still better than the original Quest rule of pick and pay.

NOTE: The release of Space Expanders showed that optional ways to play were popular in my three test groups. Just as we here have different views on how mechanics should work, players have different views on play of those expansions. Hearing back from the test groups before and after that expansion was released was quite an education in this. But there are limits. Implementing component mechanics isn't as flexible as options for how completed components are used. Our methods #1 and #2 had to be described inside the cards in different ways. I do not see a way to work it so that both Pick and Random Draw can be compatibly described on an Ability card.

Keep in mind that Talisman is not RPG, regardless that RPG was something of its inspiration. Over the editions, the game has leaned a little further away from that. Players are used to randomness, and their characters aren't really "played" as much as "used"; and Talisman at present does not have any campaign (or rather "scenario") forms of play. (I think it could, but most players wouldn't be interested... they have other games for that.)

Deviation from the game's learned nature and ways of play can only go so far. Among the three test groups, they prefer the combination of random draw and then something "to do" (minimal control) thereafter. Random drawn keeps things fair and retains the unexpected. In most other groups I've seen at conventions and events (focused mostly on the win) they do not like the pick and pay approach of Quests either, even though it was built for 4ER's push to speed up the game.

Addon Abilities will likely not appeal to "win" focused players. They won't bother but go for the freebies, kills, and shortcuts to the win. Addon Abilities will appeal to players who want variety and game focused balanced between the endgame AND the adventure along the way. There has to be some challenge in "doing" to gain that additional ability; both paradigms #1 and #2 achieve this is slightly different ways.

While we're on the topic of mechanics, I would like to suggest some rules for consideration by all. I think they would work with either paradigm for gaining Ability cards to activate. Let me know what you think.

Ability Cards

• When acquired, an Ability card is placed facedown by the player's character card. This shows the Ability is not yet active. Until active, no other Player has the capability to know what it is.
• An unactivated Ability card can be discarded at any time, including when first drawn. Discarding an Ability card does not allow drawing a new one.
• Once placed on the discard pile, an Ability card cannot be regained except by another opportunity to acquire it after the deck has been depleted and the discards returned to the main deck.
• Once an Ability is activated, it is turned face up.
  

Number of Inactive Ability Cards

• A player may have only one unactivated Ability card at any time. It may not acquire another, even when presented the opportunity, until the one held is activated (turned face up).
• A player may not discard an unactivated Ability card to take advantage of an opportunity to acquire another one. When such an opportunity arises, it must not be holding an unactivated Ability.

Here is the card that Mr. B outlined in two versions according to paradigm #1 and #2. The title is just a suggestion based on the Ability's limits. I made a small change to the Cost units to either type of Trophy, since this ability applies to both Craft and Strength Enemies. Also most evade abilities are limited to one type of space. You will also note I switched the format of the acquisition / activation instructions to hanging indents. It isn't as clear to read as the columns approach, but it does save some space.

The cards below use a semi-icon approach. My implementation is not well handle, and further simplification of other text could be addressed.

Personally, I am not a fan of iconography when plain text will do. Its overuse in Runebound skill descriptions (and elsewhere) when there's plenty of room for text is one of the game's shortcomings. In the case of Talisman, it will confuse players used to plain text on all commercial components. I have seen it happen first hand and heard it from test groups. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good option here if needed. My implementation here very short of what is possible.

Developing icons to represent all possible Cost units may be problematic; Talisman doesn't have standard icons people will recognize. We should not further confuse things by borrowing icons from another game. One possibility (as seen above) is to use simple shapes with color. Costs in discarded attribute points (S,C,L,F) could be circles; Costs in Spells, Trophies, Gold, Objects, Followers might be squares, or whatever. And these can be easily entered though Dingbat fonts, should this template then be added to something like Strange Eons. The other approach is to figure out some actual icons as graphics. I have one for Gold, but reducing its size to match standard card text might make it had to identify.

Let's share some further input on this point and see what direction and variation the majority of us would like to explore further. If you have suggestions for format changes in the cards lower half, or for icons that would clearly match the concept they represent, please share them.

@JC

I think it is just the overall look of that section of the card, with blank space and having them "bunched up" might be the issue. If these were character sized then such attributes would be spread out.

Conditions would perhaps be better served as part of the body of the card text, as they are in other Adventure type cards. You could then incorporate cost/price and location onto a single line, as strength or craft attribute are on enemy cards. Such as 3G: Any Woods space. This could then be put at the very bottom of the card.

Your point is taken that this is not the way that things have been done in Talisman, but it is also true that cards which detail cost and location are not featured either. As these are fan produced cards, I think it could easily be covered on a Rules card or something.

talismanisland said:

I follow you, but maybe you're blending paradigms #1 and #2? What you suggest doesn't fit either paradigm completely. Are you suggesting a new approach within the change of listing the details?

Both of Felis' and my mechanics involve doing something to active the ability. That requires conditions to be stated for the sake of clarity, or potency, and/or abuse in the moment. It also hints at experience gained in adventuring that reflects the ability. Maybe some notions go to far, but that's what it's about to me. It's a nod toward RPG without actually stepping fully into that realm.

Of course this may be too much. But I wouldn't have a lot of interest in creating more character power-ups based in barter & trade like the commercial Quests. Simply paying 3G when you hit the Woods sounds like that.

Perhaps it's time we work out one standard for:

1. how Ability cards are acquired,
2. how they are activated (if separate from acquisition), and
3. under what standard conditions (in addition to, or in place of, Ability dependent ones).

It would also help rate what price (literal or otherwise) that differing abilities would cost, especially for activation. We're just winging it so far. And I think it is leading us on a wandering way.

When it comes to something like "Battle Tactics" from the Gladiator ...whichi is a military (not gladitorial) art... I can't imagine the details yet. It might be available at the Castle, if we ignore the ability's character origin. Perhaps with missing a turn (or 2) to learn it. In this case, the card's details might be very similar in both paradigm #1 and #2, but this ability is an exception on this point. Decisions about "what" need to be agreed to before we get into "how" to represent them on cards. I'll go with whatever the majority wants to do.

ADDENDUM: I have another notion about acquiring cards. If three sets of cards were used (and I'm not saying they should), anytime a character wants to, it can discard 7 Strength Trophies to draw a Strength Ability, 7 Craft for a Craft ability, or 3 of each for a General Ability. Cost and Location would be on the card (perhaps in some cases there would be conditions). Activations costs thought of so far could be reduced to reflect the trophies already discarded to draw the card. If this seems workable, but needs tweaking, throw in your input please!

JCHendee said:

I was wandering if you already have this ability (elf), should you then be able to get the second ability funktion for the first cost ?

Have you been thinking of duing more to this skill lvl. funktion ?

I was thinking of the possibility to lvl. up to 3 in each skill or something.

JCHendee said:

I was thinking the icons should be for cost, location etc.

Example:

Cost/price could be a coin.

Location could be a old style house.

Condition not yet sure of.

But I actually agree that text is better if there are room for it, to prevent confusion. Otherwise I think the icons could work fine.

cheers

Ah yes, I mixed them up!

Overall I am easy on using icons or not, but I would definitely add conditions to the body text of the card.

I suppose only having two entries on the bottom (or top) of the card will be okay, though I will reserve judgement on that as it is difficult to know until you actually see it in use.

I wonder if the extra ability should be treated as another "level" of this attribute, which would need another card. This might help out with card numbers without flooding the game with a huge amount of different abilities.

@Felis

The more I think about that addon I put into "Woods Wyles" it might be better to just up the cost a little more and have Strangers evaded as well. I too like the idea of level ups on an ability, but maybe that's just getting to complicated... at least for now. See my next comments as they may reflect on other things you mention. They may also reflect on the cost put into individual cards. Gold likely won't be the cost on most of them if we lean toward a standard cost to access Ability cards.

@Jon

I don't think we'll need to pad the deck(s). The most potent abilities might occur once or twice, but the lesser ones we could have in there more than once. Evading on a particular space is a lower level ability; you avoid getting trounced, but essentially you miss out on advancing. I'd consider that a lower level ability. And there would be one for Woods, Plains, Hills, Fields (maybe Deserts). Essentially at one per multiple space types where Adv. cards are drawn, so that's at least 4 to 5 cards right there (probably in the General Abilities category). "Animal/Dragon/Monster/Spirit Awe" is another four way split where you aren't attacked (partial evading) but can still attack. Those are currently in the General category (but could be moved to Strength and Craft). That's another 4 cards, so 8 - 9 right there for just two basic abilities with detail variations.

========================================

Hmmm... my brain is now working on this idea... maybe too much. But I'll get this down while it's in my head

Leaning on random draw, the idea behind three decks is to still give players the chance to get something a little more toward what they need. A Craft based character might want/need a Strength based ability. With 3 decks, it has a little better chance than with 1. That said, here are some ideas for random draw that could all be used as options in the same game.

Experience

Trade in 7 points of trophies as follows to draw from one of the Abilities decks:

• Strength Deck = Strength trophies
• Craft Deck = Craft trophies
• General Deck = Craft and Strength mixed, at least 1 of either

Guidance

Discard 1G or 1 Fate on the following squares to draw an Ability card from the noted deck.

• Strength Deck = Village
• Craft Deck = Chapel or Graveyard
• General Deck = Tavern
• Any Deck = City, Castle

Bribery

Discard 1G or 1 Fate, plus 3 Gold or Objects, on the spaces listed for Guidance to CHOOSE an Ability for the listed deck.

NOTE: Combined with the limit of only one unactivated Ability card in hand, this would make these places more important... and that held card would limit using Ability draws to avoid other options on those spaces.

I should note that trophy trade in would also mean decreasing the average cost of activating an ability. For example, one of the previous abilities demo'ed had a cost of 14 trophy points. If using any part of the above acquisition rules, that activation cost should then be lowered to 7 pts or maybe even less.

Nothing really new here... mostly just me playing around. Yes, I decided to see what a card might look like with a little spice - and illustration and midbar. If others feel this type of card is better left plain, these additions can be turned off two clicks.

You will also note some test changes in the description area. These are not true recommendations! This is what the description could look like IF we choose to separate location / price of acquisition and put only conditions of activation on a card. See what you think along with other ideas raised. Right-click and View or Save for a closer look.

I've been thinking about the values (costs) played with by various paradigms for acquiring Abilities. Whether it's the cost to pick a known card and/or activate its ability, we're winging it. It isn't working, even for the ones I put out there. The cost for "Forestwise" is too high compared to "Woods Wiles" but by how much?

Figuring out a better way to estimate cost is the tricky part. Most people wouldn't bother or care... except maybe me. Here goes on a first step in trying to find a way to calculate some values for guestimating others. I'm working with only the base game and ignoring all expansions. Reasons why should be obvious.

A lot of abilities are related to / triggered by board spaces. The chance of hitting a space is part of the usefulness (value) of an ability. But some spaces occur in only one region, while others occur in mutliple regions but in differing proportion. Regions need to be calculated before Spaces, as differing amounts of game time are spent in them. This also affects the number (and percentage) of times a particular space is encountered. Size of region as well differs from one to the next.

Regions

Estimating time spent in each region over a game can only be a guess. I know for a fact that it isn't 50/50 between Outer and Middle. As a pure guess, across games played or seen over two decades, twice as much time is spent in the Outer versus the Middle in many games. The Inner is usually only encountered once, but as part of the board and for the sake of calculations, it has to have a number for ratios vs the other two regions.

If the Inner Region is rated as 1, then perhaps the Middle is rated at 3, and then the Outer thereby at 6. Arbitrary indeed, but gives a nice even total of 10. Game Time spent in Regions would then be as follows:

• Outer Region rating: 6/10 or 60% (0.60 value)
• Middle Region rating: 3/10 or 30% (0.30 value)
• Inner Region rating: 1/10 or 10% (0.10 value)

Spaces

Discounting game mechanics allowing character choice of space to land on, the chance of encountering a triggering space is then based on:

• Percentage occurrence of the space in a single region,
• Multiplied by the region’s game time percentage/value,
• With separate region results summed for the whole board.

Calculating Space and Region

Example 1, the Woods:

• 3 times in the Outer Region of 24 spaces equals 12.5% (0.125 value).
• Multiplied by the Outer Region’s game time value (0.60 / 60%) yields 7.5% (0.075 value)
• 1 time in the Middle Region of 16 spaces equals 6.25% (0.0625 value)
• Multiplied by the Middle Region’s game time value yields 1.88% (0.01875 value)
• Outer and MIddle Values are added together: 0.0625 + 0.01875 = 0.08125 value (about 8.2%)
• Reduced by the Inner Region value because the ability can't be used there; 0.08125 - (0.08125 x 0.1) = 0.07313 value (about 7.3%)
• Woods space encounter value for the whole board = 0.07313

Example 2, the Forest:

• 1 time in the Outer Region equals 4.2% (0.042 value)
• 0 times in the Middle Region and Inner Region, so its Outer Region value must be reduced by both region values: 0.042 - (0.042 x 0.4) = 0.0252
• Forest space encounter value for the whole board = 0.0252

I'm not suggesting these numbers be actual costs for an Ability and/or its activation. They could be used as references in pricing abilities based on a chosen maximum and minimum in a cost range. However, landing on a space isn't all there is to an ability's value. It's only a starting point, a foundation.

There’s also how much an ability increases the odds of gaining benefits and/or avoiding deficits. But already we see there’s a distinct difference between these two examples. The Woods based ability, by space encounters alone, is about 2.75 times more valuable (and thereby costly) than the Forest ability.

By encounter values shown above, versus the same example cards (Forest @ 3 Trophies, Woods @ 7 trophies), and discounting % chance of fulfilling other conditions to make the payment...

The Woods ability should cost about 1/3 of the Forest ability (2.4 trophy points), if we assume the Woods ability's cost is the maximum or highest price for any Addon Ability. And that won't be the case. Either way, the Forest ability also takes a little more risk than the Woods ability to activate, and in the roll of one die in the Forest upon landing there, there is only a 50% of it being activated (.5 x 2.4 = 1.2 trophy points).

Obviously winging it in assigning ability costs isn't working. In the next day or so, I'll address some more dimensions for valuing abilities and progress with this approach. I won't cover every dimension, but hopefully enough to balance out guestimations. As I move along, I will repost example cards, showing how they MIGHT change based on investigation. Again, they will only be suggestions for consideration by others.

Just realized a mistake, There are 4 Woods in the Outer Region. This adjust the value of Woods Wiles by Space/Region to 0.1069 rather than 0.07312. This makes it slightly over 4 times more usable than Forestwise. If dealing with only these two abilities, Forestwise cost would have to go up or Woods Wiles would to 0 trophies (and that is not unreasonable as will be later seen).

Nice cards there JC - looks realy good

I like the way to achive the abilities except the price of 7 trophies. I think it is more likely you would spend your trophies for abilities if you set the price to 5 trophies instead. Maybe put it to a standard for all abilities. Pay 5 trophies+distination. Players would then always remember - "ahh, I have 5 trophies, now I can get an ability, or should I wait and get a strenght/craft... hmmm." Just to make it more simple and people would only have to remember the distination to spend the trophies.

Or maybe split into two standards:

• Cheep abilities: 5 trophies
• Expensive abilities: 10 trophies

Just a humple sugestion

Hey, Mr. B. I too have concerns about some abilities at too high a price, but then I would consider 5 trophies for Foreswise too high as well. It's certainly simpler than trying to rate abilities, but it still has problems for me. If you like, take a look at the Abilities.PDF, and then perhaps suggest about 5 each that you would rate at those levels for others to consider. Maybe someone has some additional notions to combine with yours. For myself, I'll probably keep looking at how to roughly rate the varied value of abilities. (It will also be useful to me in two other character related ideas I have on the back burner).

I just think that most players who draw Forestwise or a similar one-space immunity would never actually activate it at any price mentioned so far. It would just sit by their character card gathering dust. And for any pick'n'choose option for a price, it would be a wasted card as well. And yet, for any option the includes some random element for acquiring extra abilities, there should be some a few weak ones a few strong ones, and the a graduated count/potency of others between those extremes. That is actually the way all the abilities take together look. This is only part of why I'm dissatisfied with trying to guess at costs for abilities, but it's certainly a troublesome one.

Later, I'll have some notions on how to implement Felis' acquisition method and my own (and possibly other people's) using the same card make-up for all approaches.

Perhaps I should setup a PNG template for the Abilities card for others to download and play with as they please for now. More still to come on my notion for rating Ability values.

JCHendee said:

Hey JC. I also think the difficult in this is the price - What will people be willing to spend on an abiliti. Maybe it should be gold and miss turn you pay to trainer/mentors in different locations, but then again some characters would have avantages like merchant and Librecorn. I cannot come up with any sugestions on anything for the moment, but may look at it later.

cheers

Indeed, the type of unit (currency) for cost is important. And discarding Gold anywhere on the board doesn't work either. (Who are you paying it to?) Different abilities should sometimes have something to pay besides Trophies... but not always.

I've managed to get my blog access setup again now that I'm on a Mac. I will no longer post monster sized "articles" to the forum but use the blog instead. There you can find what new steps of exploration I've completed, plus sample cards as well and how they have changed from previous versions in a systematic approach to experimentation. AND how the change in cost might be better handled globally instead of one card at a time. As usual it is an issue of balance for the set of cards and not just one card at a time.

See "Addon Abilities, Part 2". Copy in anything that you wish to raise for discussion... or just make general references as needed. And here are the new cards for those who just want a peek at them alone. Click images for enlargements. ADDENDUM: These only suggestion and should not be considered THE cards.

I'm heading into the busy time of year for writing, though I intend to continue my work on finding a balanced system for creating Ability cards. But with the potential workload, and that we obviously won't reach consensus on how Ability cards will work, I offer the following for anyone still watching and interested.

Download this Archive. It will remain live for about a week, as that's long enough for anyone who wants it to grab it. It contains the following PNG templates for creating Ability cards.

• Front, No Image
• Front, Large Image
• Front, Medium Image
• Front, Small Image
• Front, XSmall Image
• Back, Strength Ability
• Back, Craft Ability
• Back, General Ability

You can use these templates to created and implement your own Ability cards anyway you want. I may refine the templates more as my own work proceeds, but these should be good enough for your own players group. Jon, if you're watching, please do not host this package at TI.com or add these templates to SE just yet.

The following card backs were added to the package at the last minute. They're rather uninspired, but I couldn't think of something better (yet). The motif matches the back of a character cards, and maybe that's good enough and most suitable for what they are. In general, I don't like using FFG graphics for anything other than what they were created for. If you don't plan to separate your Ability cards into three groups like I will, then just use the back for Strength on all of yours (or whatever).

I'll have more on my own investigations into Abilities published in my newer blog at jchendee.blogspot.com within the week. Any sample / example / demo cards will appear here as well.

Another ability. Though minor and limited, its cost and conditions of activation are very easy as well. Perhaps in the next day or two I will finally get around to explaining how Gold and other cost units can be balanced as replacements for Trophy points.

I think stating 'non-animal Follower' may not be enough. In the future we may get Construct-type Followers and it's difficult to imagin that you can seduce them

You're absolutely right... and you know what... there's just nothing I can think of to solve that issue. I suppose we could say only "human[oid]" followers (since most characters are humanoid), but form and shape aren't all there is to seduction. And if we go down that adjective/qualifier road too far... the road will just get longer on us.

So, do you think the "human[oid]" approach is better than just nyxing animals? Sigh. Maybe it should be just any ol' follower and leave in the painfully obvious impossibilities for amusement. The problem there is when someone seduces a "Mule" or a "Horse & Cart"... then there are mechanics snafoos for which that I DON'T want to have to compensate on one little card.