Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft? Read through with a critical eye. (plus a bit of number-crunching in my head) Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules? What is the cost for built-in synthmorph armour? This should surely be something that can take different values, depending on whether the morph is a Case or a full-on battle morph (and let's be honest, players are going to want to build these!). We need a way to handle smaller morph frames (so we can create eg. neotenics). I would also be tempted to have 'large frame' as part of these rules, rather than a trait. DUR costs need to be in line with the 'Frail' and 'Tough' traits. Is the aptitude max cost per-aptitude, or one overall cost? Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules? Just the ability to custom-design our own morphs is awesome! Beyond that, I would say that these rules seem fairly in balance with all the existing morphs. This is really important IMHO. Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1) The 75% discount seems about right to me. Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2) I am entirely fine with the level of maths involved. I don't think I'd change it in either direction. Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised? I'd think a GM-say-so was quite important for any rule set like this. Players are always likely to find somewhat broken edge cases :-) But I think the checks are pretty good here. Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage. I think it's fine that the core book morphs don't quite come out at their original costs.

Eclipse Phase transhuman Morph Creation [b]Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft? [/b] Critical eye and my Excel-Fu skill [b]Q. 2 –What’s the most critical problem you’ve identified in these rules? [/b] The Discount Math, No Durability Limits and no special morph features, like armor and claws and ink and wings. Discount will be discussed in Q4 & Q5 but I have math based recommendations for the math. The no durability limit, on the Trait review I advocated making some Zero cost traits to cover things like morph size and shape and limb counts. I’ll repeat my request for it here and add that the size Traits should come with a maximum for durability. I’m ok with different values for meat and metal bodies but they need to be there. Otherwise it is too easy to decide that spending 250 Real PC on a Reaper’s Attributes can be pulled back a bit to boost DUR by 50 extra points personally I’d give up a +5 to SOM for 50 DUR. But I’d let implants and the Tough Trait increase DUR over the current Limit. Let’s put the limits at 40, 60, and 100 for Small, Medium and Large sizes with an extra 30 for being a Synth. The extra stuff, I know jack has mentioned that it was there but got trimmed and I think it needs to be put back in. Especially the synthmorph armor info Morph claws, beaks, ink cannons and stuff. But they should probably be rewritten as Traits or implants. I also don’t like the limit of max 10 of each cost category or the max two negative and positive traits rule because it is needlessly limiting and it should be left to the GM to control Trait choices. [b]Q. 3 – What’s the best part of these rules? [/b] I really like how the rules use a bunch of the fundamental EP character generation rules to keep things balanced. Mainly the Aptitude bonus times ten valuation. And I really like how the math works out because I can now make a custom morph section for my Excel Sheet that has rules and structure and… …Transhuman is keeping me busy. [b]Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1) [/b] Dropping the cost of Morphs from the Real Cost to Adjusted cost of 25% of Real was a smart move. However the final multiplier thing is out of place. What I did was build [b]ALL[/b] of the morphs used in Eclipse Phase using the presented system. From that I figured out that the average morph costs 25.42% of its Real cost. But I also learned that the Median was 22% and the Mode was 15.5% with a Standard Deviation of 7.14% And When I look at the Biomorphs from the Core book they average at 19.48% and 4.00% Standard Deviation. What these numbers tell me is that Morphs should cost between 32.56% and 18.29% of their Real Cost and that GMs with more “reasonable” morphs should be a lot closer to that 18% then to the 32% When I drop the bottom 4 morphs (the below zero models) and the top 4 (worst discounted) the average cost is 22.2% of the Real Price. In conclusion the fixed 25% is too high. I’d recommend between 15-30% shooting from the hip and a side bar describing the reasons for the top most discounted and least discounted Morphs for GM guideline work. I would then recommend instead of the fancy multiplier thing have a section describing the hassles of Morph Design and R&D. Like how biomorphs take a couple of [b]YEARS[/b] to grow and even with accelerated growth for testing three years is a good ballpark to look at when players decide to make the “next” remade. Pods would take 6-18 months to develop and synths as quickly as time compressed simulspace allows for. (I don’t think that non seed AI simulations can do genetic sims accurately enough to make a Biomorph) [b]Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2) [/b] Complexity is 100% good. If I can make excel do the math to verify all of the variants in use in 15 minutes then the complexity is fine. Fyne for the Community fans. I’m already asking for some more complexity for the sake of balance so I’ll live with more. [b]Q. 6 – GM’s, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised? I would let my players math things out until they hit the real cost stage. Then I would make them write me a backstory and then I would handwave a discount rate that is something between the Swarmoid’s 83.3% of Real Cost and the 12% of the Worker Pod’s Real Cost. But a sidebar that explains some of the reasons why morphs are valued differently would be nice. There is after all a reason why the least discounted morphs are the Swarmanoid, Flexbot, Martian Alpiner , Fenrir, Skulker, Xu Fu and Kite. One is out dated and the rest are specialised synths. [b]Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage.[/b] Since I’m advocating a change in the math to use the current morph discounts as examples of what new morphs should cost I wouldn't retcon any morph. Well Maybe the Fenrir with its assumed (by me) 200 CP cost because it’s Real Cost in within 5 of the Reaper’s Real Cost. And they are both horrific kill bots in my book. I’d consider giving a bonus of the Case because it sucks hard. It should be a 10 or 15 CP Bonus, but Flats and Infomorphs should be a 5 CP bonus and the Spare should cost 0 CP. But everything else is very close. [b]Q. 8 – If you did Excel-Fu will you share?[/b] Yes here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhgr5fqwr3btlwn/New%20Morph%20Math.xlsx The first sheet is a report sheet and the second is all of the math. I hope it helps. William Wilson

1) I like to break things, so I went through each step and looked at a) how I could break the system, and b) equivalent morphs/gear/traits and other costs, assuming "Costly R&D". 2) The .25 multiplier DESTROYS any game balance. (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion) 3) I like that they exist at all and that we will have a new book. (Yay!!!!) 4) The _75%_ discount is the biggest problem in that it looks really cool at first (package deal) until the min-maxer in me starts to play. (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion) 5) The math is as easy or easier than the rest of the game, so I'm not having an issue. 6) Not in a million years! (See "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)" post in Discussion) 7) I would probably use my own system, which changes up a lot of the multiples and brings things more in line with what exists. My guess is that you guys could do a lot to clean it up some more. (See my post in Discussion after "Min-Maxer Abuse (Warning for GM's)")

[b]Q. 1 - How did you review the material in this draft? [/b] Simple reading. I tried to create my own Excel spreadsheet, but kindalas's is better than mine, so I use it. [b]Q. 2 - What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules? [/b] Aptitude Bonuses. Is it possible to take negative modifier, like Case morph's "–5 to one chosen aptitude"? If it is, negative Aptitude Bonuses would be abused. Skill Bonuses. Why 0.5 multiplier is applyed for skill, while it isn't for Apptitude? Is there any limit on Freerunning and Freefall (sometime work a place of Fray), and Unarmed Combat? It sounds "+50 for Unarmed Combat with 25 Real CP" is possible. Augmentations limit. Is it too many "Max 10 for each price category"? I feel "Max 10 on total, exclude standard augmentations" is more balanced. Cost Multiplier Table. I coudn't figure what Cost Multiplier I should select. How to determine a morph is under "Costly R&D" or cheap one? And how to determine Cost Multiplier between 1.5 to 2.0 about a Costly R&D morph? I prefer more concrete guidelines, like "If a morph has +10 aptitude bonus, its Cost Multiplier is 1.5 (Costly R&D).". [b]Q. 3 - What's the best part of these rules? [/b] Being able to make my own morph! Yes, there is no rule about test modifiers and timeframe. But it is enough for players at char-gen phase. [b]Q. 4 - How do you feel about the math? (Part 1) [/b] I feel it will be simpler to combine two multipliers into just one. I mean, if Adjusted Cost Multiplier is 0.25 and Final Cost Multiplier is 1.6, it should be 0.4 (0.25 * 1.6). That said, most of published morphs are close with the 25% discount, so the number is fine. [b]Q. 5 - How do you feel about the math? (Part 2) [/b] I don't mind about complexity. Spreadsheets will take care. [b]Q. 6 - GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised? [/b] I hope so. But I'd like to have some safeguard against extreme min-maxing. For example, some features (+15 for one aptitude) should need Gamemaster approve. [b]Q. 7 - Mechanical retconnage. [/b] I welcome the retconage. When I design a variant of existing morph, it is very convenience its CP Cost is match with morph creation system and I must work at only a small fraction of it.

Q. 1 – How did you review the material in this draft? Did you try them out in actual play with your group? For how many sessions? Using what kind of PCs? Did you crunch some numbers in a marathon character generation session? Or simply read through them with a critical eye? A. 1 - This material was meticulously read and evaluated. Several characters were very quickly drawn up as best as possible. Many numbers were crunched. Q. 2 –What's the most critical problem you've identified in these rules? Is there an endemic problem you think is underlying this rules set? Is this material too complicated for your liking? Is there a specific rules item you think is egregiously broken and needs to be fixed? Is there anything that you simply think *must* be changed? A. 2 - The most critical problem that I found was that there were only two pages of rules. It sort of shows how important the game creators think this is to give it such a short cursory overview. The cost multiplier table is woefully inadequate. Instead of saying "A good lab setup" why not describe it like "Character must have access to or purchased a tools shop or tools facility." Also, what the hell is a morph that has a unique look? This is a universe where people can be robots that look like giant snakes, or bugs, or an exotic she goddess. How about saying, "A singularly unique form that is so exotic that it stands out in all crowds, ie. an eight foot tall troll, or a quivering ball of intelligent goo." I would recommend being a LOT more descriptive in the Cost Multiplier Table. There is also a huge problem with saying that anything under 20 points causes clanking mass social stigma. Did I miss something here? When I look at any synth morph no mater the cost they all have that social stigma. Why do only the cheep ones have it now? Seriously did I miss some version upgrade to the rules or something? In short you really should expand on what mandatory stigmas must remain with all potential morphs. For example what about the Neotenics, do they still get a stigma if you design one yourself. To be honest I like the idea of being able to remove these stigma by doing a different design. However, I would like to know that its actually a possibility and not something I just read into the few rules that exist. Q. 3 – What's the best part of these rules? Is there anything that you absolutely loved? Something that you sincerely think *must* make it into the final version? Anything that really contributes to the game in a positive way? Something that shouldn't be changed? A. 3 - The best part is that the game creators are actually thinking about this, and I personally think its about time. What disappoints me about that is that this system SHOULD have been developed and employed at the beginning of game creation. That way you might of avoided making stupid f@*#ing space wales. The most positive thing about this is that it can be done. There isn't anything in the two pages of rules that makes me drool, but the concept must remain, and the concept must make it into the game. Q. 4 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 1) The 25% discount to all of the elements comprising a morph was roughly arrived at by taking the costs for all morphs in EP core, eliminating a couple of extremely expensive/cheap outliers, and averaging the amount by which they discount their component parts. Is this too much of a discount, too little, or about right? A. 4 - The 25% rule is fine. However, it disappoints me that you had to through out the outliers. As mentioned earlier, if a system like this had been in place from the very beginning there wouldn't be any outliers. Q. 5 – How do you feel about the math? (Part 2) Is it overly complex? Would you prefer something that makes fewer attempts to enforce game balance, but is simpler? Or would you prefer to introduce additional complexity if it meant finer game balance? A. 5 - The math was very easy and mostly done in my head. I would have no problem if you added more to your equations. However, that's coming from somebody who does his own taxes... and I itemize. Something you need to keep in mind is that multiplying a negative number by whatever adjustment cost multiplier isn't going to do anything... because is still a negative damn number. I think this is a potential problem with your math, but that's just my opinion. Q. 6 – GMs, would you ever let your players use this unsupervised? The rules are written to be adjudicated by the GM, but the intent is that it be low maintenance – EP GM's have enough work to do! Are the checks on keeping a player from devising something completely broken adequate to the task? A. 6 - What do you mean "unsupervised?" what the hell are we kindergartners? If I GM (and that sucks) I would demand that the player character produce the entire morph so that I could then spot-check it. I in no way shape or form would go through the entire process with them. Yes they can be "unsupervised." Q. 7 – Mechanical retconnage. Many core book morphs don't come out to their original CP costs under this system. Is this OK, or a problem? If you decided to use this system, would you change the costs on core book morphs in your campaign? A. 7 - Yes this is a problem. In fact it rubs me so raw I actually signed up to this forum to complain. As mentioned earlier, if you had a system in place from the beginning this wouldn't be a problem. Its almost as if the game creators have painted themselves into a corner, turned around, and "Shit! how did we do that?" Come on guys how can you suddenly discover that the "cost value" of certain morphs don't jive with your story line at this stage of the game? I can understand how some expensive "specialty" morphs can be inserted for various reasons. However, to determine that a morph can potentially be so cheep that it neutralizes the concept of the indentured info morph is a little lame. If I used this system I wouldn't change the cost of the original Core morphs. That's your job, for the day when you do EP version 2.