Somebody Else [Pokémon]

Eeh, we could restrict things far further than the "only 1 from each of the Pallet lines with no repeating elements". More limits to how many Pokémon we could have, restrictions on how closely we keep traits, restrictions on how far Pokémon are from each other, and so on.

In my eyes, the one I mentioned is a compromise between many and fewer restrictions. It still narrows our Domain enough to give powerful bonuses, but we've still got access to several different elements.

In a meta sense, it's boring is the problem.

We have a world set before us that requires us to sacrifice potential to make it. That's fine.

We also have a world encouraging us to forge new and innovative bonds in the world. Going with the starting 5 is boring because it goes directly against that.

I'd rather tie our hands in more interesting ways. Even a simple type limit gives us a full type to plumb for material.

Why not try to come up with one?

I'm not closing the vote until all discussion seems settled.

Thanks!
 
If we restrict to fewer pacts, can we have mercenaries in our party? So that way we can get type coverage without breaking the restriction. That would mean hiring on a near-permanent basis, but I figure that's not too bad since we get money anyway.
 
In a meta sense, it's boring is the problem.

We have a world set before us that requires us to sacrifice potential to make it. That's fine.

We also have a world encouraging us to forge new and innovative bonds in the world. Going with the starting 5 is boring because it goes directly against that.

I'd rather tie our hands in more interesting ways. Even a simple type limit gives us a full type to plumb for material.

I agree completely, I'm forseeing us meeting a super cool pokemon the next town over and being unable to bring them along because we restricted ourselves to only those 5 specifically.
 
I don't know how this would rate in terms of power, but I thought of a more restrictive version of the elemental types restriction - one of each type ever. So, for instance, if we had a fire type and it died fighting with us, we would never have another fire type. Which also appeals to me on a poetic/character level, because it punishes us for screwing up and getting our partner killed/our partner ditching us.

Not quite sure how it would handle mixed types or someone like an eevee who evolves from one type to another type, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if there was any interest.


Also, my main reason for the 5-family restriction being on the list of things I will never vote for is that I can see a way for the QM to kill us with it in one move. "Pallet town burns down, you're stranded with no way to pact new pokemon."
Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 2, 2019 at 3:02 PM, finished with 133 posts and 28 votes.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I had an idea. What would happen if we made our restriction: the first six Pokemon we pacted with that had non-reoccurring types, and only those first six Pokemon?
 
QM's Notes: Restriction Effects
Looks like this might take a few more days.

While you guys discuss, I'll write up more worldbuilding articles for you to consume so you don't get bored without a story update. But that's only if the discussion lasts all the way through the weekend because I run an izakaya and weekends are hell.


If we restrict to fewer pacts, can we have mercenaries in our party? So that way we can get type coverage without breaking the restriction. That would mean hiring on a near-permanent basis, but I figure that's not too bad since we get money anyway.
I agree completely, I'm forseeing us meeting a super cool pokemon the next town over and being unable to bring them along because we restricted ourselves to only those 5 specifically.
You can always hire an unlimited number of mercenaries as long as you have the cash.

Note that other than your salary, each of your Pacted Pokemon also get their own salary. Which means Pacted Pokemon don't have to be paid out of your own pocket.

But also note that mercenaries are not cheap, and that the more skilful they are, the more expensive they tend to be. They also tend to be unevolved because attempting to evolve without a Trainer requires a high Rank in Independent Action, and is also dangerous because if you fail to complete evolution before the Miasma turns you, are swarmed in the process, or just fail to make it back to a safe zone... Then you either die, or turn.

It's a bit easier with a Trainer party protecting the Pokemon attempting to evolve, of course, but it's not a guarantee.

Partial evolutions are permanent which means you get stuck at your bottleneck forever, so you can really only attempt evolution once.



Also, my main reason for the 5-family restriction being on the list of things I will never vote for is that I can see a way for the QM to kill us with it in one move. "Pallet town burns down, you're stranded with no way to pact new pokemon."
Yeah, but I won't do that because it'll kill my quest.

The latter, not the former. :V I might still burn down Pallet if shit goes down.


Okay, closing discussion... the obvious compromise between Chloe and David is 'both.' They'd work well together and compliment the bulbasaur. I see no reason not to strongly support that option.

I see no obvious compromise between the 'pile as many restrictions as possible' camp and the 'less restrictions means we have more options for problem solving' camp. Knives at dawn?

Can I get a QM ruling on what these would give us?

-Restrict to 2 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 3 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 4 pacts at a time
-Restrict to 5 pacts at a time
I don't know how this would rate in terms of power, but I thought of a more restrictive version of the elemental types restriction - one of each type ever. So, for instance, if we had a fire type and it died fighting with us, we would never have another fire type. Which also appeals to me on a poetic/character level, because it punishes us for screwing up and getting our partner killed/our partner ditching us.

Not quite sure how it would handle mixed types or someone like an eevee who evolves from one type to another type, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if there was any interest.
Hey, I had an idea. What would happen if we made our restriction: the first six Pokemon we pacted with that had non-reoccurring types, and only those first six Pokemon?
I'm buffing the Non-Repeating Forever Restriction with Independent Action +1.

The following list can be buffed or nerfed at the QM's discretion. Because I'm not all-knowing and I make mistakes. Also because I'm drunk right now.

Restriction List:

One type only
boosts all STAB by 1 OR gain additional EX Skill.

Specific mixed-type only
boosts all STAB by 2.
gain additional EX Skill.

Non-repeating types
boosts all STAB by 1.

Non-repeating types forever
mixed-types count and removes from the available list.
evolving removes from the available list.
cannot evolve if you will gain a type that's not on the available list.

boosts all STAB by 2.
Ranks-Up Independent Action by 1 Rank.

Pallet Set
Non-repeating types

(meaning you can't get multiple Eevees until you evolve one of them)
boosts all STAB by 1.
boosts your EX Skill.

The Pallet Set (with only one each at any one time)
Non-repeating types

boosts all STAB by 1.
increases the highest attribute by 2 (if equal, GM's choice).
boosts your EX Skill.

The Pallet Set (with only one each forever)
Non-repeating types

boosts all STAB by 2.
increases all attributes by 2.
boosts your EX Skill.
Ranks-Up Independent Action by 1 Rank.

Any Pokemon
First 6 Individual Pokemon (not species)

increases all attributes by 2.
boosts your EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action by 1 Rank.

Maximum of 1 Pact forever
boosts all STAB by 3.
increases all attributes by 10.
boosts your EX Skill.
gain an additional EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action to S-Rank.

Maximum of 1 Pact (at a time)
boosts all STAB by 2.
increases highest attribute by 10. (GM's choice.)
increases all other attributes by 5.
boosts your EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action by 2 Ranks.

Maximum of 2 Pacts (at a time)
increases highest attribute by 7. (GM's choice.)
increases all other attributes by 4.
boosts your EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action by 1 Rank.

Maximum of 3 Pacts (at a time)
increases highest attribute by 4. (GM's choice.)
increases all other attributes by 2.

Maximum of 4 Pacts (at a time)
increases highest attribute by 2. (GM's choice.)
increases all other attributes by 1.

Maximum of 5 Pacts (at a time)
increases highest attribute by 2. (GM's choice.)
 
Hey, I had an idea. What would happen if we made our restriction: the first six Pokemon we pacted with that had non-reoccurring types, and only those first six Pokemon?

I don't want anything to do with a nuzlocke. I don't want element restrictions either, only supporting the Pallet restriction for the reductions in vote fighting.

3 or 4 Pokemon at a time would be my vote, letting us pick up anything needed(or simply available) with a good boost.
 
I'm very tempted by both Non-repeating types forever and by Maximum of 4 Pacts (at a time), if a bandwagon got started for either or both.
Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 2, 2019 at 4:23 PM, finished with 141 posts and 29 votes.
 
If I'm being honest I don't really like this whole restriction thing, it forces players to min-max very early and is IMHO stalling the quest with too much Important choice.
The boosts are clearly extremely powerful and they explain the abundance of mono-type trainers too, but it's taking a lot of the hype I had for this quest away.

I don't like being restricted in what pokemon we end up with, the whole we meet a cool pokemon out there that we'd like to travel with argument, but not getting that EX boost or some other powerful boost that other trainers have irks me.

This whole situation is forcing the players to choose the kind of power gaming that only really works in games that are played by individual players, because no matter what ends up being chosen, someone won't like it.
Either we get no (or very minor) restrictions, which upsets the power gamers, or we get massive restrictions which upsets those who want the freedom to get other pokemon this is a lose-lose scenario.
 
Last edited:
Maximum of 1 Pact forever
boosts all STAB by 3.
increases all attributes by 10.
boosts your EX Skill.
gain an additional EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action to S-Rank.

By god, Lance's Dragonite must hit like the fist of an angry god and with a S+ Multiscale not even pretend damage hurts.

 
Last edited:
By god, Lance's Dragonite must hit like the fist of an angry god and with a S+ Multiscale not even pretend damage hurts.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he has the 1 pact forever thing, someone made a hardcore ironman comparison
Maximum of 1 Pact forever
boosts all STAB by 3.
increases all attributes by 10.
boosts your EX Skill.
gain an additional EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action to S-Rank.
 
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.

I mean starter pokemon are strong pokemon that are meant to last you and a tank line in a death world seems like a necessity
 
If I'm being honest I don't really like this whole restriction thing, it forces players to min-max very early and is IMHO stalling the quest with too much Important choice.
The boosts are clearly extremely powerful and they explain the abundance of mono-type trainers too, but it's taking a lot of the hype I had for this quest away.

I don't like being restricted in what pokemon we end up with, the whole we meet a cool pokemon out there that we'd like to travel with argument, but not getting that EX boost or some other powerful boost that other trainers have irks me.

This whole situation is forcing the players to choose the kind of power gaming that only really works in games that are played by individual players, because no matter what ends up being chosen, someone won't like it.
Either we get no (or very minor) restrictions, which upsets the power gamers, or we get massive restrictions which upsets those who want the freedom to get other pokemon this is a lose-lose scenario.
I'm sorry to hear that.

But it's a core part of the world-building because REDACTED, so I can't really help it.

If it helps, this world isn't a "catch a Pokemon" world and there's nothing stopping you to get more Pokemon in your party than your Pact allows, as long as you're willing to settle for mercenaries.

Is the max 5 restriction accounted for within the Pallet set bonus?
Yep.

That's why STAB+1 & EX Skill+1 (Pallet Set), and Max 5 Restriction stack to get your Pallet Set One Each.
 
Last edited:
Non-repeating types
boosts all STAB by 1.

Maximum of 2 Pacts (at a time)
increases highest attribute by 7. (GM's choice.)
increases all other attributes by 4.
boosts your EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action by 1 Rank.

These two seem like a decent enough balance between future opportunities and engaging with the setting, since we can hire out for more muscle and focus on two members at a time.

So...

[X] Chloe the Eevee
[X] Write In
-[X] Restrict yourself to non-repeating types and two pacts at a time.
 
I'm do like the idea of David and Chloe as our first pairing. Chloe brings the flexibility, and I feel like that gets real benefits from having time to develop all those extra attunement skills. The fact that she has a built-in ranged attack also means some decent synergy with him, and I admit, I *like* that her default melee attack has a blind proc. The fact that she's apparently the second most durable doesn't hurt any. I just see David as the more critically important of the two. Power-to-soak is... kind of a big deal.
 
I'm do like the idea of David and Chloe as our first pairing. Chloe brings the flexibility, and I feel like that gets real benefits from having time to develop all those extra attunement skills. The fact that she has a built-in ranged attack also means some decent synergy with him, and I admit, I *like* that her default melee attack has a blind proc. The fact that she's apparently the second most durable doesn't hurt any. I just see David as the more critically important of the two. Power-to-soak is... kind of a big deal.
Eeh, I'm less sold on Chloe as one of our first Pokémon. Sure, she would bring flexibility, but that flexibility will take time to develop. Meanwhile, Arthur seems to be the strongest ranged attacker with discounts to fire attacks, allowing him to fire off even more attacks right from the beginning.

(Plus, the idea of the starter trio between us and Leaf appeals to me. :p)
 
Eeh, I'm less sold on Chloe as one of our first Pokémon. Sure, she would bring flexibility, but that flexibility will take time to develop. Meanwhile, Arthur seems to be the strongest ranged attacker with discounts to fire attacks, allowing him to fire off even more attacks right from the beginning.

(Plus, the idea of the starter trio between us and Leaf appeals to me. :p)
Maybe it should be more impressive, but I look at "able to launch small flames (which burn on crit)" vs "able to launch homing lasers" and the second one sounds a lot cooler. He also only has one more MAG than she does. Sure, he's got a lot more gas int eh tank, and that does matter, but I get the impression that she's got a fair edge on him in close combat.
 
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.

The numbers have seduced me.

Specific mixed-type only
boosts all STAB by 2.
gain additional EX Skill.
This looks interesting, and also is what Leaf took.

Maximum of 1 Pact forever
boosts all STAB by 3.
increases all attributes by 10.
boosts your EX Skill.
gain an additional EX Skill.
Rank-Up Independent Action to S-Rank.

The... the numbers... They're so shiny...
I am so, so utterly tempted.

I want to chuck us and our ice beamin' Blastoise up against Lance and his Dragonite eventually and see who's stronger.
 
[x] David the Squirtle
[x] Restrict your pokemon to these five family lines, with no matching elements, and no more than one pokemon per line.

The numbers have seduced me.
Let the numbers whisper sweet words of temptation. :V

Maybe it should be more impressive, but I look at "able to launch small flames (which burn on crit)" vs "able to launch homing lasers" and the second one sounds a lot cooler. He also only has one more MAG than she does. Sure, he's got a lot more gas int eh tank, and that does matter, but I get the impression that she's got a fair edge on him in close combat.
Oh, no doubt that Chloe would defeat Arthur in close combat. I think that Arthur has more damage, though. First of all, he's more efficient due to his trait, and his Mag Mastery also has a better rank. I'm not sure if that'd translate into better attacks, but at the very least it gives him some utility due to the smoke.

And besides, if Burn is anything like the second-to-last wdango Pokéquest, then it's nothing to sneeze at. Inflict burn, either let David drag out the fight or simply cover the battlefield in smoke, and let then let the burn tick down the opponent.
 
And besides, if Burn is anything like the second-to-last wdango Pokéquest, then it's nothing to sneeze at. Inflict burn, either let David drag out the fight or simply cover the battlefield in smoke, and let then let the burn tick down the opponent.
Oh, sure. I have no doubt that burn is awesome. My question is more in how often crits go off... and how often they're going to go off early enough in the fight to matter.

Worth noting, though, that one of the great things about the five-families restriction is that it stops being an argument about "which" and turns into an argument about "when". Arthur gives us long-term earlier access to flight (though limited), and gives us a magic blaster who can keep tossing out the magic long-term and has some extra kick on it from time to time. Those are useful, but they're not actually all that synergystic with our initial core strategy. (Admittedly, that changes if crits are easier to get than I expect).

By comparison, Chloe gives us someone who can switch between ranged and melee reasonably well, who has debuff procs currently built into her melee, and who might well develop more later. Further, she brings all sorts of utility long-term, as she picks up elements. For the short term, she fits in quite well in a few different roles, and long-term she just... enables things.

Especially given that we're getting both, I'm thinking that short-term, that blinding melee sounds really useful, and long-term, having a few more notches of utility is probably going to be more valuable than having a slightly more powerful blaster.
 
Looks like this might take a few more days.


Non-repeating types
boosts all STAB by 1.


Pallet Set
Non-repeating types

(meaning you can't get multiple Eevees until you evolve one of them)
boosts all STAB by 1.
boosts your EX Skill.

I dont like the Pallet Set Restriction. Compare its power to non-repeating types. Types forbids... nothing really, in the long run we might get any pokemon to pact with us. It poses a bit of a challenge because we have to think about what we might want to pact in the future, but there are no restrictions set in stone. Pallet Set outright forbids us from taking on (Johto+Kanto+Evolutions going out = 151+100+21-3-3-3-3-1-3-2-2 = 252) 252 Pkmn 11 of which would be legendary and probably wont matter (although it would hurt even more if it was offered and we couldnt accept). And all we'd get for that super restrictive thing is a single boost to EX.

It's crazy restrictive and doesn't really give enough for it to be justitifiable. And we have a very predictable future, I mean, 11 different fully evolved Pkmn possible with that restriction and the 7 Eeveelutions are very similar to boot.

And a tally to see the options that have been voted for at all up until now
Adhoc vote count started by Wysteria on May 2, 2019 at 4:23 PM, finished with 141 posts and 29 votes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top