If your GM allows this kind of nonsense.
I'm going to try not sounding confrontational...
1. Evil is perfectly fine, if that's what your players want to play.
2. The players might not always want to play heros... and that's fine too.
All good advice.
Run games on the fly, having to pull adventures out of thin air gets the creative juices flowing. It's also a good exercise to adapt when your players do something unexpected.
Talk to your players and see what expectations they have from you as a GM. Do they want a hack n Slash? Do they want a gritty tooth and nail game? Or something more cinematic?
You don't have to use everything printed. Look it over first and if it doesn't fit in the world you want to run, then cut it out.
Admit when you're wrong as a GM. Sometimes you'll make a bad call, it'll happen. I've done it. Correct the mistake instead of being bull-headed about it.
The lesser version of this spell only creates the demiplane. The higher level versions all have things that will take care of these needs. Until then you'd have to enchant things yourself.
The wall at the edge of the plane, is just that, a wall. It might take the form of mist, or void, but is otherwise impassable.
I wanted to do something similar, I have a mapped demiplane with ventilation, sewer, automated winery, etc, etc, etc... all with broken down cost. It gets really expensive. And all of it requires the higher level versions to truly make it homey.
29. We totally killed all of those trolls. (They did, he was screaming like a little girl in the corner.)
30. I did not scream like a girl. (yes he did.)
31. I WAS TAKING COVER (hiding behind the door.), SO I COULD KILL THEM WITH MY CROSSBOW!!! (doesn't own a crossbow.)
32. It's Up Stairs! (doesn't have a crossbow upstairs.)
33. Anyways... if it wasn't for my warning (another high pitched shrill, technically not a lie) the party would've attacked and killed from behind. (the rats may have been diseased... maybe...)
34. They swarmed us (there were three.)
35. I took point to defend the party. (Was in the back anyways.)
36. I fought the swarm (still three) bravely and won the fight single-handedly (technically not a lie, though he was yelling "icky" "icky" "icky" with his eyes closed and stomping the ground with his boot, not really a "fight" per se).
37. The battle took it's toll and I needed to rest. (fainted)
38. The party was greatful (laughing)
39. My immune system is so strong I fought off any diseases they were carrying. (as it turns out, they were escaped pets.)
40. Afterwards I found their treasure horde (cheese) and the party decided for my brave efforts and sacrifice they would let me have it all. (No one wanted to touch it)
41. I was touched by their generosity (cried because they were making fun of him.)
42. Sadly though, after that adventure, we had to part ways. (they kicked him out)
43. Now I'm leading an expedition into the moutains. (going home with a trade caravan)
24. this isn't what it looks like. (it's exactly what it looks like.)
25. he was dead when I got here. (No he wasn't.)
26. No officer, she's not s prostitute, she was lost and I was walking her home. (your home...)
27. Warts!? heavens no! I'm... textured, for your pleasure. (gross...)
28. Watch Officer!! He went that way!! (Points and has no idea what's going on.)
GM says: Did you get Cheetos?
GM says: Bard, you've spent 20 minutes talking to every NPC passing you on the road and it's yielded no useful information.
GM says: Make a wisdom check.
This is my point exactly and is a prime example of why I avoid milestones. In the frist breath says the players and punished for not making a session if XP is used and then in the next says "I will delay a level up as a form of discipline". It's the same thing, at least with XP you don't level up for a logical reason, you didn't show, you didn't adventure, you didn't get XP, simple math. Milestones, you didn't level because the GM was butt hurt.
Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thank you.
Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.
A Banshee's wail is supposed to kill anyone who can hear it, or just frighten them if they're far enough away. Does the sound stop at the point where the last hit point is taken? I'll have to take another look but IIRC the 3.x version was no save, which is slightly better, but still underpowered.
Indeed, the whole vampires bursting into flames thing came from the movie Nosferatu.
I haven't seen it, but it looks like an Intriguing idea.
Indeed, it is up to the GM to determine what goes into the game. But that exurting control over the world as a whole, whitch is what the GM is there for. Without XP the GM has direct command over your character and leveling is solely GM fiat.
I have played in games where the group didn't use XP. We leveled when it suited the story. I like a set challenge/reward, when it come to advancement. It's all well and good if that's your play style. But it's not mine.
It's not. there are predetermined XP rewards in the book. Kill/Defeat a monster/encounter/trap/etc., get that XP. Milestones are more abstract and can be placed anytime a GM just "feels" like it (unless I'm missing something).
It's in the charm school, but it's not a full blown charm.
What stops it is the spell description. What the spell describes is the only thing that happens. He's not under any compultion to listen to the bard, he has a harder time discerning friend from foe (in regards to the bard). That's it, it's not Charm Person.
1. No. He can't take any hostile act against the Bard... not the rest of the group.2. No. Remember this is a cantrip. He's considered the bard's ally for determining flanking, that's all. He's not otherwise going to be convinced of anything else. This is a slight befuddlement, not a full charm.
3. Spell description is "one living creature."
Well, I'm sure there are other spells in the world other than what's in the books. And I'm sure she's not the first pregnant lady to die. The trick would be to find an NPC who has the right spell within the timeframe before the baby dies.
Limited wish could probably help... at least for a bit. Dunno what level the party is.
Iron was considered to be the life blood of the earth (because blood smells like iron). As such, it was thought to contain properties that could ward off and harm many supernatural beings.
Why not have the local lord sign off on a writ of execution? The PCs will be lawfully obligated at that point to execute them. No need to fuss with prisoners at that point, unless they are required for plot.
Some men like the danger.
Alright, let me clarify. I'm simply expressing my observations. These observations are based on where I grew up and what I've experianced and places I've vistied. They are by no means the end all be all of observations and by no means cover the whole of humanity.
In my personal paradigm, you, as a "feminine boy" hold no place either higher or lower than any other boy, masculine or feminine, gay or staright. This would, of course, change over time if we were to talk more and get to know eachother.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I apologize for the miscommunication. I should have amended that sentance with either "We are taught..." or "...in boy culture". It was meant to be a statement reflective within the culture, not my opinion. It apparently didn't come off that way.
I myself am a bronie.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I wore a kilt on my wedding day. It was awesome. I've wanted one of my own ever since.
Jessica Price wrote:
Pretty IS vulable. Prople don't but diamonds because they're hard. Pretty certinly isn't everything about a person. But it's the first quality people look for in a mate.I think it's closer to pretty = pretty and slutty = sexy.
EDIT:It's not "our culture" it's "boy culture". We are genetically wired for competition. Liking "girl things" makes you a lesser compeditor. Tomboys are cool because they're girls who are closer to understanding us. They are also girls a guy can closer identify with.
The same way a lot of girls think drag queens are cool.
Masculine = more valuable than feminine, is true, in "boy culture" when you are speaking about another boy. Feminine = more valuable than masculine, when you're talking about a girl.
Possably, people collect all sorts of things.
Not true, some might take off the heads.
I'd like you to explain to me why little girls are interested in Bratz dolls at all. Instead of demurely dressed ones.
Speaking as a father of two girls 5 and 7 years oldLittle girls want to grow up and they want to be like teenage girls. Unfortunatly, many teenage girls dress like *CENSORED*. I know this because I have eyes and can see them (this, of course, doesn't apply to all of them, but many). Bratz dolls emulate teenager dress and thus attract younger girls, who wish to emulate teenagers. They arn't teenagers yet, but get to emulate them through the dolls.
Just FYI, Bratz have been BANNED at my house.
I'm not a marketing expert. I don't have a clear answer to this. But seeing all the women's magazinzes that have other half naked women on them... I can see the logic behind it.
This also depends on how diseases function in your game.
If diseases are microscopic biological things that do bad things in your body. Can an outsider, who is not really made up of earthly material, contract an earthly disease?
OTOH, if diseases are evil spirits that posses your body and drain it of its energies, or what have you. Again, the question is, can one spiritual being posses another?
These are questions you have to take into consideration when DMing. Having outsider NOT immune to disease, is, I think, an oversight.
I've always viewed them as carriers myself, immune to the diseases they contract. There are a lot things missing from different monsters that they really Should have. Being immune to mortal disease for All outsiders is one of them. But that's homebrew.
Also, it's not like succubi can't trade sexual favors for cures. Sneak into the motal plane, seduce a preist. Or just stay at home and trade favors with other demons.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
1 Swiss Franc to 48.93 Philippine Peso.
K177Y C47 wrote:
I was reading it as Deckard Cain.
Yes, the opponent finds out the feint worked as soon as he's stabbed.
Also, what Gwen said. They might know, but they're already off balance. You could always do a second sense motive (hindsight). If they fail it's "stupid rogue missed". If they succeed, it's "crap... my left flank is exposed... this is ganna cost me...". This would give them the opportunity ("them" being the PCs and NPCs) to step out of range and save themselves from a painful mistake (assuming they have a higher init.).
The PCs round the bend of the forgotten forest. All of a sudden a dozen wood elves spring from the bushes, bows drawn.
Lead Elf "We have you surrounded, we outnumber you two to one".
PC Fighter "It's a trap!" Draws his sword.
PC Rogue "Trap!" Rolls Disable Devise. SUCCESS!!
The ambushing wood elves bows and weapons drop to the ground, having been disarmed.
PC Fighter "I didn't know you could do that"
PC Rogue "Disable Devise allows me to to disarm ANY trap"
Lead Elf "You can't do that! That's now how the skill was intended"
PC Rogue "I doesn't matter" Pulls out the book "You are skilled at disarming traps and opening locks. In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors." Clears his throat. "It doesn't say anything about it having to be a mechanical trap or a magic trap..."
Lead Elf "well... crap..."
For my homebrew campaign, there will be a few characters age 7-12. How should I write them so that they're not all stereotypical annoying children that the PC's will want to brush off? How can I get my players to listen to and like these kids when they really don't have a whole lot of influence or anything important to say?
Don't make them stereotypical and annoying?Make them well behaved.
They Ooh and Aww everytime the party comes to town.
They ask them questions about how to become an adventurer.
They want to help by doing menial tasks for the party, like shine their shoes and what not.
One or more of the kids could develope a kid crush on some of the PCs.
They squabble over who gets to sharpen Sir *whoevers* sword.
Play Mage the Ascension? All Virtual Adept reality hacker game. Pretty much exactly what you're talking about.
I am familiar with Shadowrun, it was not a game that was my taste. I am more the Star Wars, Star Trek, Eureka, Fringe, Doctor Who type of guy. With a wit like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at times.
Understandable, I'm not a fan of Shadowrun either.
Rifts has... I think 30 something world books, probably a half dozen dimention books, not to mention all the source books and Rifters.
Hero... Hero is far more flexable, everything is modular, you can build anything you want. I have never found anything I can't replicate in Hero... given enough points.
White Wolf is modern with magic... maybe not quite what you're looking for. It does, however, have a very flexable magic system... if you're playing a mage.
Firefly, Stargate, Travaler are all high tech... though no magic.
Here's an entry from wikipedia.
Riddle's analysis has been credited for pointing out that although 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' can be seen as positive attitudes, they should actually be treated as negative because they can mask underlying fear or hatred (somebody can tolerate a baby crying on an airplane while at the same time wishing that it would stop) or indicate that there is indeed something that we need to accept, and that we are the ones with the power to reject or to accept. This observation generalizes to attitude evaluations in other areas besides sexual orientation and is one of the strengths of Riddle's study.
From this context I can see why tolerance has been put into the negative category. She is, however, using a definition of tolerance one does not usually associate within a discussion of this nature. And thus she is choosing to ignore general terminology.
In general, when people discuss LGBT issues, tolerance has a differant definition then one would use when discussing the crying of an infant.
However, Acceptance is still wildly misused. As, if you accept someone, there is no underlying fear or hatred. Otherwise, you are not really accepting someone, you are just paying lip service.
I've heard those arguments as well. They do not, however, change the fact that the riddle scale is using these words inappropriatly. Personal perspective does not influence terminology. This scale is colored by the personal perspective of Dr. Riddle and her personal definitions. These are not the definitions used by the general public nor do they carry the same connotations as Dr. Riddle seems to think they do.
Tolerancea fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
These are most people define these words, it's also how the dictionary defines them. Looks like Dr. Riddle redefined them to me. Perhaps she should have picked up a dictionary or thesaurus first. She could have just as easily color coded her scale. The Riddle scale is not the end-all-be-all. It is a tool, like any other used in any science.
It does nothing to clarify. It's confusing definition and common useage with a personal perspective and jargon.
It looks to me like she was confusing these two words with ignorance and denial, respectively. Turning the words tolerance and acceptance (that are either neutral, non-isse and posative, in most peoples eyes) is antagonistic.
Do you mean to say they are saying abstinence as a cure for HIV? Is that it?
Anyway, Lovecraft called most/all of them Evil, but I don't think his notions of what that entailed match Paizo's (considerably more progressive) notions of Evil.
I would hesitate to say progressive (as that is colored by point of view). More defined perhaps.
I would call them evil, but in this case it's a matter of perspective. Most of us don't consider ourselves evil for killing a fly whose getting in the way of the TV and annoying us. We might view them as evil because they show no concern or compassion for us.
But as embodyments of forces beyond our comprehension, it's kind of like calling fire evil for consuming wood, or radiation for causing cancer.
We also view them as chaotic. But they rest on multiple planes of existance and between. We can't possably fathom the consiquences of their actions on an interdimentional scale. Destroying a planet full of life in dimention A could be of great benefit (on an interdimentional cosmic scale) to dimentions B and C. For all we know, they could be lawful. Lovecraft defines them as evil and chaotic, from our perpective, that's exactly how they act. But our perspective is extraordinarily limited at best.
I would keep them as CE because they act (from our persepective) as we have defined CE. But if you want to take them on a philisophical level, they are unaligned, like fire, they are what they are.