Quote:

You're not buying more DUR or augments, you are literally buying a new morph.

Not so: it literally is the case where every extra module attached to a Flexbot gives it more DUR and access to the Augments in those modules. Because of how fexbots work (as per the revised Flexbot rules in Transhuman) they can easily outstrip other morphs for raw DUR with enough modules.

Quote:

I need to do a review of what you can do to reduce costs. I've used morph creation rules to make cheaper flexbot modules. I found that reducing DUR and aptitudes is helpful. Don't buy aptitude bonuses, reduce the aptitude cap, and reduce DUR, keep armor light, etc. Definitely don't buy aptitude bonuses as for some morphs it is 50% of the cost. Don't over do cost reductions. You're trying to make flexbots a practical option in this game, not cheat to get an advantage.

Bearing in mind this comparison and feedback is specifically for the current iteration of flexbots in the 2nd Edition playtest. To recap the differences: morphs of any kind now have resource pools, rather than aptitude bonuses (like versions of Moxie tied to specific mental, physical or social actions). Even so, if you reduce the already low DUR of Flexbot modules (individually most have equal, or even [i]less[/i], DUR as Flats or Cases) you start to cut into the only advantage they have. Otherwise, why [i]shouldn't[/i] Flexbots get the same morph-specific aptitude/pool bonuses that all other morphs get? With the 1st Edition Flexbots, their aptitude bonuses could combine to be exceptionally competitive with even high-end morphs, and provide a very reliable platform for all kinds of activities. With 2nd Edition flexbots, it looks like they've been designed to cut down the pool benefits in return for Wares - which I can already tell is going to make them even more undercut by regular morphs who can do the same things, and better, for FAR less than it costs to field a working Flexbot.

Quote:

I'd say the biggest thing Flexbots can do is just carry fewer items of 'Ware. The 1 point of pool per module seems very intended and pretty flavorful, given the assumption that you're supposed to be stacking modules up pretty tall.

I'd be tempted to agree, if other morphs were balanced similarly. As it stands, even the humble Dragonfly morph (2cp) gets 2 more pool points than an individual Flexbot (4cp) - you would have to spend 12cp, total, to get the same pool benefits. That is a terrible trade of Cp-to-pools power which leads me to believe that Flexbots, as they are, are severely underpowered by comparison. The most glaring problems, as I see it, are: -Too many Wares per module. -Too many [i]redundant[/i] Wares across the current module selection. -Too little module variety. What I'd recommend to rebalance/optimize Flexbots (I'm keeping these ideas in mind for if/when the 2nd edition morph creation rules are hashed together): -A set of modules with few/no extra Wares and at least 2 pool points per module. -A set of modules with task-specific Ware packages for easy mixing and matching, and few, if any pool points. -A set of modules with no few/no extra Wares or pool points, but with module specific special mechanics (like the Apiary or Bouba).

eaton wrote:

The modules should be specialized, and combining them should produce a well-rounded (but expensive) aggregate with some unique advantages other kinds of morphs don't share. (Like the ability to split off one module and use it for recon)

I am agreed - even though the current iteration of Flexbots technically meets those requirements. They just do so in the most inefficient way possible, and leaves them with the least 'bang-for-buck' of any of the available morphs. Even Cases/Flats are inferior but better, because they're free. Personally I wouldn't mind if each of the current modules, or new ones that might be devised, have something to the effect of 2 pool points per module, and one or two Wares, beyond the standard Flexbot Wares, to help define a specialty for that module. If it's even possible, I'd like to see such modules priced at 3cp. In that way, individual flexbots wouldn't be much better than other morphs (if at all) in the same price range, and only outdo the 'better than nothing' options like Cases/Flats. Then of course you start aggregating those bonuses/Wares into the collective as you add more modules. Edit: Did some number crunching and piecing things together from a spreadsheet a few topics over to try my hand at recreating the morph creation process used, and seeing why things are the way they are.

DivineWrath wrote:

I would also like to point out that making a large Flexbot will result in the reduction in number of actions possible. Each module could have functioned as their own morph; given to a friend or a fork of yourself. You are in essence trading actions for DUR and aptitude bonuses/pools.

This issue is not specific to flexbots - this kind of action economy can be achieved with a single person, a few multi-tasking implants and a bunch of spare morphs with puppet socks. The unique benefit of flexbots is they [i]can[/i] merge together to achieve larger forms, and get the bonuses to DUR, and so on with larger compositions. With the specific example provided, it sounds very much a case of using different means to achieve the same goal - one that flexbots might not be the best suited for, in my own estimation.

Quote:

The existing selection of Flexbot modules (1st edition) are not good at getting high aptitude bonuses. They're all +5 bonuses. Two +5 bonuses can't combine to form a +10 bonus. If you want +10 or +15 bonuses, you would need provide them in some way.

That's what Augments are for - pick a module with a SOM bonus and give it Enhanced Muscles or Reinforced Skeleton (or both). Give a REF module a Reflex Booster, fit it to the SOM module and there you go. Not always an option, admittedly, but just because the default bots don't have impressive boosts doesn't mean they can't be made so. I won't discuss the point further based on the 1st Edition mechanics - I don't have a problem with them. I [i]do[/i] want to discuss my feedback as per my original concerns for 2nd Edition.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

Another idea would be to give them a unique ability to interact with the Flex Pool, expanding the types of items which can be 'introduced to a scene' by allowing the morph to create gear on the fly, perhaps from a list determined by the module type.

I like this idea, a lot. It definitely fits with the theme of the adaptability and the shape-changing capabilities of flexbots (AKA Flexbros). Instead of a list, perhaps it could be a sweeping ability to introduce one Ware of Moderate complexity, or two Wares of Minor complexity - within reason. That way there doesn't have to be a specific list, and it could apply for future supplements/wares as they get introduced. Otherwise one of the issues of the cost of the Flexbot morphs (apart from some of the wares selections) comes from the two signature wares that makes a flexbot a flexbot: Modular Design and Shape Adjusting. Based on my attempts above to reverse engineer the devs own morph creation system, one of these Wares is considered Moderate complexity (2 CP pre-calculation cost), and the other is Major (4 CP pre-calcuation cost). I wont argue the necessity to say "this is what makes a flexbot capable of being a flexbot" but is it possible to fold the two wares into a single Major complexity ware for the sake of simplicity (and possibly cost savings)? This would ease up on the number of wares in the 'bots, in general, and it would be just as easy to say "this ware is specific to flexbots, or shells converted into flexbots."

o11o1 wrote:

A) Cyberbrain, Puppet Sock, Eidetic Memory, Mnemonics: These are all the same item of 'ware, and should cost as per a single Major item of ware all together, instead of being nickle and dimed. This is also currently having effects on Pods.

Synths and pods all suffer from this stuff - even all biomorphs (except flats) have the mesh inserts and biomods. Yea, it's nickel and diming, but it's also the cost of doing business, which isn't much of a problem since EVERY morph (except the freebies) has to pay for those.

o11o1 wrote:

B) Shape Adjusting and Modular Construction, as mentioned by Lurkingdaemon, are also the same upgrade, I've never seen morphs have one but not the other.

Once upon a time Reaper morphs had Shape Adjusting to reflect their ability to do all kinds of crazy compacting and disguise work with their various limbs and weapon mounts. Synthtaur (where are my 2nd Ed Synthtaur?!) also had it to represent their ability to switch from a quadruped stance to a biped one, in addition to doing funky things with the forelimbs (which became a second set of arms). There was even a nifty gizmo of a Synth called the Mimic, which could pretend to be various objects of various sizes using Shape Adjusting. A variant of the Steelmorph had it too. 2nd Ed seems to have revamped the Reaper: now they have just the Pneumatic and Retractable Limbs wares, so they can still do funny stuff with their Doc-Oc tentacles, but not some of the tricks that seem to be exclusive to flexbros now. If anything, Modular Design was the exclusive augment for 'bots, as nothing but 'bots had it - whereas Shape Adjusting was a catch all for physical reconfiguration of some kind. If Shape Adjusting is being passed over for other wares that do the same(limb wares, skinflex, etc) then the Flexbot specific use for it could be folded into Modular Design as a matter of course - since, in the context of flexbots, the two wares are literally synonymous.

o11o1 wrote:

C) More optional, but: All Flexbot Morphs, in addition to ThatWhichNeverWas's suggestion of generating gear on the fly, all the Modules should have at least 1 Flex point base, to ensure that it can actually be used.

Agreed with a caveat: [i]SOME[/i] Flexbots should have Flex, but few, if any other pool points - to encourage getting multiple modules if/when possible to shore up deficiencies. I can easily see situations where a single module with very good pools gets stacked to the exclusion of all others, which more or less defeats the point of having a variety of modules in the first place.

Grim G wrote:

They weren't necessarily a Flexbot thing, in fact, some modules didn't even have Shape Adjustment! I'm also pretty sure Modular Design could be bought as an aftermarket mod for all synthmorphs.

I think its been mentioned, officially, elsewhere on the forum that all 'bots in 1st Ed were intended to have both Shape Adjusting and Modular Design - any instances where that wasn't the case was simply oversight. And yea, you could technically turn any Synthmorph into a flexbot if you had the credit/favours to spare for the cost.

Grim G wrote:

I'm a little iffy about Flexware (although that does roll off the tongue), but every module getting a point of Flex is something I back 100%

I like the name. If it is a big thing to have the Flex pool to exploit the so-called Flexware, perhaps the Ware itself should grant 1 additional point to the 'bots Flex pool? That way every module would be able to leverage the ability, and the 'bots themselves could be balanced a bit more freely/inventively as far as the individual modules are concerned.

Grim G wrote:

What do you mean by that? I just coined "flexware" as the name of the ability to produce ware on the fly. That being said, I'm a bit more open to the idea now that I have time to let it sink it. Flex may allow you to introduce an item into the scene, but ware of any kind doesn't seem plausible on it's own. You suggested 2 minor or 1 major, right? I guess that would work, but you can't create new ware without removing the old one(s), and not in the same scene as you still have said ware (I would imagine a T-Ray emitter would take hours to make).

In the same way that certain wares now provide a boost to pools (Mental Speed for +2 Insight), the flexbot specific ware, whether its called Flexware or something else entirely, could have an inherent +1 to Flex - in addition to enabling the shell/morph to use the flexbot rules. As for the suggested Wares that can be recreated - I actually recommended 2 Minor OR 1 [i]Moderate[/i]. Wares that are Major complexity are the really high end things that I'd imagine are either so specialized, or so sophisticated that the shape-adjusting materials and modular parts of a Flexbot simply cannot recreate. As I see it, this would keep Flexbots as swiss army bots, but prevent them from pulling a fabricator out of their backside (unless it was already built in). EDIT: Because everyone likes numbers, I did some more reverse-engineered crunching to illustrate some of the suggested changes as they may, or may not, be implemented. Outlined in the crunching is a recreation of the Yeoman module from 1st edition - with Pools of 1 Insight, 1 Moxie and 1 Flex.

To reiterate, and expand upon my original concerns, with help from everyone that's pitched in so far, currently flexbots suffer as very mediocre choices as either independant morphs, or combined modules for the following reasons: [list][*]High expense for low value - Flexbot modules are very light on Pools, and heavy on wares - making them overspecialized as morphs, and poor choices compared to more adaptable, less purpose-built bodies. This is illuminated further by their high MP costs for each morph/module, and, as currently drafted, requires almost double the cost in MP to achieve similar Pool totals, compared to other morphs. [*]High redundancy - in part due to the current drafts frontloading Flexbot modules with wares, the available flexbot modules have severe overlap in the wares available - in some cases having 3 modules out of 4 with the same, redundant wares. [*]Lacking module variety - the lacking number of modules, currently written, compounds the above issues severely, as there are far fewer options for selecting modules - with almost 2/3rds less choice in the way of modules, and fewer unique wares per module.[/list] Beyond these issues Flexbots need multiple, expensive wares to achieve their signature mechanic. The expense, overlap and redundancy of the Modular Design and Shape Adjusting wares feels counter to the whole streamlining process that has taken place, so far, with 2nd edition. My own suggestion to alleviate a few of the latter issues would be to rework how a Flexbot is determined to be a Flexbot - namely through the Modular Design Ware. By making this ware, which was already specific to flexbot shells (even if it was accidentally left out in some 1st edition modules), be the ‘signature’ ware for all flexbots - while simultaneously removing the need for Shape Adjusting (which has yet to reappear in 2nd Ed morphs, besides with flexbots themselves) - the requirements and baked-in cost of the modules is reduced, and the overall number of wares per module is also trimmed down. As an example of how I think this could be done:

Quote:

[b]Modular Design [Moderate][/b] The morph is composed of modular components, in a smart material shell, capable of changing shape and function. The shell can attach to other Modular shells to create larger, composite forms. Enables Flexbot rules. +1 Flex pool. Synthmorph only.

My reasoning: [list][*]Foremost, the complexity is similar to other wares/gear capable of self-reconfiguration (utilitools, etc), and the principle is similar, albeit writ large for the morph scale. [*]The inherent Flex bonus would represent the variety of narrative options available to a shape-changing shell with this ware. [*]Redundancy is done away with, making this the ‘signature’ ware for Flexbots, and synthetic shells converted to flexbots. [*]This would also make individual flexbot morphs more economical - reducing their MP cost by 1 for the modules currently written (by cutting out the creation cost of a major complexity ware), and providing each of those modules +1 to their Flex pool.[/list] Apart from these suggested changes, additions to the flexbot rules to further emphasise their adaptable nature have been suggested. [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/61976#comment-61976]In particular, the idea that Flexbots could use their modular/rearranging capabilities to mimic wares not already installed in their shell[/url]. I’ve been tentatively referring to this idea as ‘Flexware’, with the thought being:

Quote:

[b]New Flexbot rule: Flexware[/b] Flexbots can arrange their internal components and shape-adjusting shell to recreate lower complexity wares. Only attached modules gain the benefit of these wares. Max 2 additional wares. Spend 1 Flex: gain 2 Minor wares, or 1 Moderate ware until next long rest.

My reasoning: [list][*]Making this ability a core feature of Flexbots, rather than a ware-based feature, limits potential abuses, while keeping Flexbots uniquely adaptable. [*]Tracking what wares are being spontaneously generated is easier, and players attempting to leverage the ability more heavily would have to make use of Flexbots other features (being composed of multiple morphs, etc). [*]The concept itself would allow Flexbots to be much more adaptable as morphs, and capable of circumventing some issues regarding wares and their modules (chameleon skin, radar absorbent, etc). [*]The flexbot player would have more options of narrative influence - and would have to decide between the standard options for using Flex, and this ability.[/list] Addressing these issues would hopefully make flexbots more competitive as options for morphs, while retaining their uniqueness within the setting and mechanics. [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/61976#comment-61976]Another suggestion[/url] that’s [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/62000#comment-62000]come up[/url] a [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/62668#comment-62668]few times[/url] has been the idea of non-morph attachments of some kind. Depending on the implementation of such an idea, I could agree with the principle. Two counter-points I feel should be mentioned: Firstly, if the main concerns brought up for Flexbots get addressed, the issue may become a moot point; Secondly, having non-morph attachments means just that: the attachments aren’t full morphs, and lose the benefits of being such for the more creative flexbot user.

MUCH more affordable now, as a medium-sized morph can be put together on the base 6 MP given for character generation. I like that the ‘flexware’ concept seems to be the 2nd Ed rules for Shape Adjusting. I like this approach as it better defines what one can do with it, compared to the more loose, nebulous rules from 1st Ed and Transhuman. Still think the pools per module are a bit weedy, but now they’re much more in line with the cost-per-bot issue I brought up originally. Any discrepencies in pools are basically made up for in Shape Adjusting, which can account for nearly any minor or moderate ware the Flexbot user needs. Only problem I can see now is a lack of variety, at least compared to everything available in Transhuman or the Morph Recognition Guide. This is minor when remembering 1st Ed core rules gave us only one module type, compared to the four we can chose from with just 2nd Ed core rules.

o11o1 wrote:

Technically you can't put a Medium sized morph together because it now takes 4 flexbot modules to make a Medum size.

Wait, what?

MakingCharactersNov16 wrote:

A flexbot with 3+ modules is medium-sized; 5+ large; 10+ very large.

So to clarify this, is it supposed to be "Three or more modules is Medium sized" (which I think is the case), or is it now "More than three modules is Medium sized"? If it's the latter that's a fairly...odd shift, even with the ability to borg regular robots into the Flexbot.

Wyvernjack wrote:

I haven't played EP in ages, waiting for EP 2nd ed to get back into it, pretty itchy for sci fi shenanigans. One thing I was wondering, rulewise, how plausible would it be to have a flexmorph with a specific movement system (flight in this case) attach to a skinmasked synth with shape-adjusting. Probably ripping off Optimus Prime from the movies or something here, but shape adjusting is just awesome conceptwise. Help appreciated.

WELL, the short would be: entirely plausible AND possible - with a few ‘But’s. Foremost, bear in mind the movement rules for Flexbots: Each module in the bot must have the same movement systems - otherwise you can only go around at half speed with the movement system in question. Also, if Shape Adjusting can emulate movement systems in 2nd Ed (as it can in Transhuman) this becomes a non-issue. Also note: The Synth-bot in question would have to have the Modular Design and Shape Adjusting wares added to it. The only issue with this is the complexity costs for either are up in the air (currently). I have my suspicions that both are Moderate complexity. Other than that, the wing-module would need its own Skin-Mask to not interfere with/blow the cover of the Synth-bot - which Shape Adjusting can cover. Summed up: Yes you can attach a ‘Jetpack’ or have a pair of wings you can hang in the closet. Ideally you would need/want: 1) Modular Design and Shape-Adjusting added to the ‘main’ bot. 2) A Flexbot module (AND/OR a Modular Design robot) with Wings. When putting the two together, things would play out depending on whether rules (or your GM) decides if Shape Adjusting can, or can not, emulate Movement Systems: No Emulation) You plug in your wings and can fly - but at half the usual rate. Emulation) You plug in your wings and can fly, suffering the half-movement rate penalty until your Shape Adjust gives the ‘main’ bot wings too. After that (2-8 hours, depending in complexity) you can fly without speed penalties from ‘unsynched’ movement systems. PS: It is worth noting that all current Flexbot modules come with the Thrust Vector movement system as standard - which could allow flight in most gravities, albeit in a more ‘Iron Man’ fashion.