Role Reclassifications

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: Should really be invest.

[CrowdfordBot]

phantomtomic: Sure

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: i think we need a formal definition for each role category

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: we do

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: as in

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: we do have one

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: oh XD

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: where is it

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: i dont think its written down anywhere anymore but the definitions are super basic

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: the basic categories:

kill: actively chooses to attack/kill someone invest: actively chooses to check someone power: actively chooses to use an ability (that is neither an attack/kill or a check) group: is part of a group [townsfolk only] misc: has a passive ability, or no ability

kill explicitly trumps group. by current assignments i think group actually trumps invest (and thus power, because invest and kill obviously trump power), and obviously everything trumps misc

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Though herald is an exception

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: no it's not

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: herald is the innkeeper of huntresses

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: I wouldn't call it an active ability

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: it is

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Not any more than coroner

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: if you accept that huntress is an active ability, then herald is too

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: I don't really think huntress is active

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

Not any more than coroner

coroner can't choose whether it receives info or not

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: I just thought killing takes priority over everything

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: basically, if you think huntress isn't active, you should want it reclassified as misc (and herald too)

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: if you think it's active, you should want ranger reclassified as invest

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: and i believe assistant reclassified as power?

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: I don't consider huntress as active, I just thought the definition of killing roles was different

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: well, now you know the proper definition, do you want huntress reclassified?

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: targeting is pretty explicitly an active ability, though

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: i'm not sure how you could consider it passive

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: though by the herald logic, journo should probably also be considered power

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: When we first wrote it we thought on its own it was a misc ability

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Targetting that is

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: But the power that comes with it can be something else

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

When we first wrote it we thought on its own it was a misc ability

don't say "misc", say "passive"

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Yeah, passive

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: I mean we can't really say targeting by itself is a power classification. Because so many targeting roles are misc

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: luffy PLEASE

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: that is LITERALLY WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

But the power that comes with it can be something else

anyway this means that what you're saying doesn't change anything? by this logic, ranger and herald and assistant and journo are all roles with an active ability attached

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: If we consider targeting to be an active ability, then yes they wouldn't really be misc

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: there are three options for you here:

1. targeting in itself is an active ability: none of HHRJA should be misc

2. targeting is not an active ability, but the ability used on the target is an active ability: none of HHRJA should be misc

3. targeting is not an active ability, and an ability that activates because of targeting is not an active ability: all of HHRJA should be misc

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: which one are you trying to endorse here?

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Well I thought it wasn't active, and that the definition for killing roles was that any capability to kill whatsoever made you a killing role (exe and huntress)

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: luffy

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: PLEASE

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: we have already established that you thought that, and that you thought incorrectly

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: PLEASE

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: PLEASE

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Then I think we should have it written down somewhere

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: that's true but not the issue we are discussing!!

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: please answer the question!!

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: PLEASE

[CrowdfordBot]

captainluffy: Then I guess I think we should change the definition of killing roles