Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
So, I summoned my animal companion today (stoked), after poring through the landing for the perfect badger. I was pretty happy when I found a "plump forest badger", but now that he's my lifelong companion, he has dropped the 'plump' modifier. Is this normal? Is there a way I can turn my badger back into a little fatty?
Player of Zeek
So, I summoned my animal companion today (stoked), after poring through the landing for the perfect badger. I was pretty happy when I found a "plump forest badger", but now that he's my lifelong companion, he has dropped the 'plump' modifier. Is this normal? Is there a way I can turn my badger back into a little fatty?
Player of Zeek
As a development request can we have this changed to be the default ("plump forest badger" instead of "forest badger". I noticed the same thing with my "velvet-furred dusky woodchuck" which just shows as a "dusky woodchuck" and was rather disappointed. I still love having him but now I need to win a grooming raffle just to have this fixed.
-- Robert
Player of Zeek
As a development request can we have this changed to be the default ("plump forest badger" instead of "forest badger". I noticed the same thing with my "velvet-furred dusky woodchuck" which just shows as a "dusky woodchuck" and was rather disappointed. I still love having him but now I need to win a grooming raffle just to have this fixed.
-- Robert
I mean, frankly this seems like a 'not working as intended' type thing. Something like 'forest badger' or 'plains lion' etc. sounds hopelessly generic, and it seems odd that the 'sense' critters would have that extra adjective and then it just...disappears? Any official word on this in the past? I mean, really how am I going to compare my dwarven friend to my badger in order to imply he's fat if the badger isn't a little porker?
Player of Zeek
Player of Zeek
For what it's worth, it's not gone completely. If you DESCRIBE your friend, the 'long version' shows up as part of the description. My pale golden cougar is a blue-eyed pale golden cougar when DESCRIBED. Which doesn't at all address why it gets chopped off that way to begin with. Changing it would be lovely.
>it seems odd that the 'sense' critters would have that extra adjective and then it just...disappears?
GS objects only have one adjective. Designers use tricks to make it appear to have more in some contexts, but at the cost of the object looking boring or silly in others. In "a plump/forest/badger" forest is the adjective and plump is actually part of the article, so it gets lost whenever the context supplies the article.
GS objects only have one adjective. Designers use tricks to make it appear to have more in some contexts, but at the cost of the object looking boring or silly in others. In "a plump/forest/badger" forest is the adjective and plump is actually part of the article, so it gets lost whenever the context supplies the article.
>GS objects only have one adjective. Designers use tricks to make it appear to have more in some contexts, but at the cost of the object looking boring or silly in others. In "a plump/forest/badger" forest is the adjective and plump is actually part of the article, so it gets lost whenever the context supplies the article.
What about groomed companions? Does this just apply to NPCs? If so, how does "a grizzled Grimwarm ranger" work? I've never seen a 'groomed' AC, if anyone wants to edify me on how that works.
Player of Zeek
What about groomed companions? Does this just apply to NPCs? If so, how does "a grizzled Grimwarm ranger" work? I've never seen a 'groomed' AC, if anyone wants to edify me on how that works.
Player of Zeek
Every object in GS has a 15/15/15 which is article/adjective/noun. Only the adjective will get treated as an adjective in all contexts.
a grizzled/Grimswarm/Ranger will lose the grizzled in any context which supplies its own article and hasn't been specifically coded to keep it.
Grooming is any alteration to the companion and would usually involve more than the 15/15/15, but just doing something like changing from "a plump/forest/badger" to "a/plump forest/badger" would turn the adjective into "plump forest" and give you the effect you want.
If you take a look at every companion you come across in the game, you probably will have seen some groomed ones. They don't actually say they are groomed, but what you see will be fancier than the default.
a grizzled/Grimswarm/Ranger will lose the grizzled in any context which supplies its own article and hasn't been specifically coded to keep it.
Grooming is any alteration to the companion and would usually involve more than the 15/15/15, but just doing something like changing from "a plump/forest/badger" to "a/plump forest/badger" would turn the adjective into "plump forest" and give you the effect you want.
If you take a look at every companion you come across in the game, you probably will have seen some groomed ones. They don't actually say they are groomed, but what you see will be fancier than the default.
Grooming is any alteration to the companion and would usually involve more than the 15/15/15, but just doing something like changing from "a plump/forest/badger" to "a/plump forest/badger" would turn the adjective into "plump forest" and give you the effect you want.
Except that I believe what is happening by default now is that they are creating the animal companion as "a/forest/badger" instead of "a plump/forest/badger" which would also give the desired effect.
-- Robert
Except that I believe what is happening by default now is that they are creating the animal companion as "a/forest/badger" instead of "a plump/forest/badger" which would also give the desired effect.
-- Robert
The article omission is intentional. This design decision made when companions were first coded. The original idea was to keep the name of the companion short as to not clutter up room descriptions.
A lot has changed since 2002, including the addition of spirit servants, singing swords, and demons, and new descriptions for wizard familiars. Most of these have longer creature names than freshly summoned animal companions and have all definitely contributed to cluttered rooms. You can make the argument that these later developments merit a change to companions since the other pets break the original intent. You can also argue that these additions make the original design intent all the more important and that after 11 years of precedence no change is warranted.
Either way, I'm not on the Dev team and have no say in Rangers. This is just something I came across when I fixed the a/an issue.
~Vanah
A lot has changed since 2002, including the addition of spirit servants, singing swords, and demons, and new descriptions for wizard familiars. Most of these have longer creature names than freshly summoned animal companions and have all definitely contributed to cluttered rooms. You can make the argument that these later developments merit a change to companions since the other pets break the original intent. You can also argue that these additions make the original design intent all the more important and that after 11 years of precedence no change is warranted.
Either way, I'm not on the Dev team and have no say in Rangers. This is just something I came across when I fixed the a/an issue.
~Vanah
Thanks for providing the additional insight on this Vanah (and for fixing the a/an issue)! So to ask a possibly dumb question, is there a process in place for submitting the proposed change for the dev team to review? If so, what is that process? It seems that posting requests on the forums is a hit or miss proposition depending on the folder and who monitors it.
-- Robert
-- Robert
>So to ask a possibly dumb question, is there a process in place for submitting the proposed change for the dev team to review? If so, what is that process? It seems that posting requests on the forums is a hit or miss proposition depending on the folder and who monitors it.
It's not a dumb question, but there isn't any other process in place. Posting on the forums is still the best way to make suggestions and air concerns, even if there are no visible responses.
~Vanah
It's not a dumb question, but there isn't any other process in place. Posting on the forums is still the best way to make suggestions and air concerns, even if there are no visible responses.
~Vanah
<A lot has changed since 2002, including the addition of spirit servants, singing swords, and demons, and new descriptions for wizard familiars. Most of these have longer creature names than freshly summoned animal companions and have all definitely contributed to cluttered rooms. You can make the argument that these later developments merit a change to companions since the other pets break the original intent. You can also argue that these additions make the original design intent all the more important and that after 11 years of precedence no change is warranted.>
My argument would be the wording and design of the companions originally are based on terrain, climate, and specific things about the rooms that you found them in, it was how you were able to choose your particular preferred companion. With enough time and scouting you could get one that was unique to you based on that. Mire, meaning boggy places, Rush meaning shrubby thick growth, plains is more obvious,misty being mountains, some of the others are even more obvious.
The one things that made them completely unique was that last descriptor, like a cross eyed hedgehog, that one ranger had for years and to my knowledge was not a grooming and it never lost his uniqueness. Things like the ring tail, long tail, etc., they are not required for one because they don't exist in real animals of the nature there used in GS, and are used in GS as part of that same terrain, climate, environment definitions.
I think tho this argument is the same one in the R/W the newspapers an the magazine companies had. The magazine people got upset cause there product was subject to sales tax, making it more expensive then the local papers in paper boxes. They lobbied most state congresses about it to have the sales tax on magazines removed. In the end the states listened, and added sales tax to newspapers. I'm fine with rangers have to win an alteration if that how it is I had to wait 8 years to get mine. Now bring the rest of them in line with us. Then they also have to pay for a raffle an wait for one to come along for an alteration that exceeds the standard companions are held to. Less clutter and we all have to have an alteration to get past a basic description, all is equal then.
However I will say companion auctions for alterations Now are available just about once a month and at some festivals. All the other things, swords, demons, servants, familiars,... should not have too much problem if they have a guru as diligent as for companions. I'm actually really pleased this topic came up.
I dunno. I feel like it should be reviewed. It's not that it really bugs me, but 630 is a profession defining spell, probably one of the most significantly so, and it seems to me that one's companion should have some flare, some real character, even in the immediate room description. It's this characterful quality that made me so excited when I was that I could get a 'plump' forest badger. I literally started laughing and went 'PERFECT'!
Now, let's step back and think about it. This is a game. I played a ranger to level 30 (this character has never been scripted - I did this by hand!). That's a long time. I was really stoked about 630, and I still am. But when your player gets this watermark skill and uses its variable content to find something suited to their hopes, and goes "PERFECT!" and then immediately finds out that it's actually less perfect than it appeared? That's a red flag that maybe it could be done better. 630 is a great spell, and I congratulate the people that made it, but I think our little furballs deserve a little more immediate character than a geographic indicator.
Also, if I ever get him groomed, I expect the GM to roleplay us feeding him until he can't move.
Player of Zeek
Now, let's step back and think about it. This is a game. I played a ranger to level 30 (this character has never been scripted - I did this by hand!). That's a long time. I was really stoked about 630, and I still am. But when your player gets this watermark skill and uses its variable content to find something suited to their hopes, and goes "PERFECT!" and then immediately finds out that it's actually less perfect than it appeared? That's a red flag that maybe it could be done better. 630 is a great spell, and I congratulate the people that made it, but I think our little furballs deserve a little more immediate character than a geographic indicator.
Also, if I ever get him groomed, I expect the GM to roleplay us feeding him until he can't move.
Player of Zeek
It'd almost be nice to see an animal companion alteration offered to any ranger who achieved level 50. They've something like this for plat and titles. I honestly doubt there are all that many rangers running through the system that something like this couldn't be supported, but all the same, it would be an added burden.
!>tell child to be quiet
The child cries, "I don't wanna!"
!>tell child to be quiet
The child cries, "I don't wanna!"
A groomed, or altered companion follows the 15/15/15 rule for alterations. but the last 15 has to be the noun, or animal so you pretty much can ignore that as you wont have much say so.
That meaning, if you have a lion, your last 15 is lion.. if you have a hamster your last 15 is hamster. The rest is up to you an has to be run through QC first, but usually you can get what you want as long as your not tryin to make your companion glow, or shimmer, or do something that might be seen by others as a magical or animated behavior or verbs.
A simple example is first 15 characters- skinny furless ; (spaced count) second 15- pale eyed; third 15 - badger
you likely cannot use words like starving, or mistreated, or sick... maybe sickly...not sure, thats why it goes through QC for final approval.
