Jeremias's page

269 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Azothath wrote:
Jeremias wrote:

...I decided to host it myself:

Monster Advancer

unfortunately the file is missing, Firefox only downloads the front page (no monster statistics so won't work offline), and the German version is kaput.

Monster Advancer on d20PFSRD also has dead website link.

Uploaded the Zip file (I forgot that one):

Sadly, I have no clue who is responsible for the german version, else I would gladly host it too. The link is there from the previous iterations, I didn't do anything with the HTML. (I am just someone with webspace to spare, nothing more)

I have filed a report with d20pfsrd about the dead website, so they can maybe redirect to my webspace. But it is probably of a lower importance.


I have seen that the website posted above doesn't work anymore. As I have used the tool quite often I decided to host it myself:

I already reached out to the original creator and asked him if his not OK with it.

Have fun with this great tool!

@Deathless Ones
Thanks, that is a great tip! I didn’t know this feat, now I will employ it.

Yeah, I will probably do that, but the wizards have to be quick about it. :)

The Oracle has Blindsense and is prone to cast Invisibility Purge. The Fire Kineticist can dispel magic with his blast, which has proven useful against mirror images. But yes, those are both tactics employed by me. Obscuring Mist is one tactic I didn’t think about, thanks!

Hey all!

I am little bit stumped and could use some help. My players have built some very strong fighter-type characters: An UC Roge with the Eldritch Scoundrel Archetype, two Kineticist (Fire and Water) and a Life Oracle. Going by an essay about Bench-Pressing ( ation-by-the-numbers/) I would say they are in the blue zone in almost every aspect, sometimes even above that.

They are now going up against a cabal of very intelligent and savy wizards (the Technic League, and have already been spotted and described by citizens.

Now, what can those poor wizards do? As written, they are often underequipped to safely counter people who deal 150 points of (fire) damage per round.

I thougt about energy resistance/protection shenannigans and the very good displacement ability. And a lot of Will-Saving stuff in the offensive. Any further advice?

Dear Forum Users!

My Players want to play the Kingmaker PC game. We have finished Varnhold Vanishing and my players have already beaten the Drelevs and will soon go on their way to the barbarians.
Does anybody know if the game will spoiler them? Does the Big Bad get revealed?

MasterZelgadis wrote:

Made some more Resources, I want to share with you. Mostly in german. But with the included Photoshop psd files, you can change that to any language you want

Great stuff! As I am planning to start the campaign tomorrow and considering my wife doesn't speak english I love german stuff.

Just saying "Nope. Roll yourself." is not your style? A lot of people I game with would say that and I as a GM would enforce that. ;)

And besides playing with other people, there will be no magic fix. Sorry about that.

Regarding the problem of the sun: You are all aware that the solar system as a whole is not fixed in space? If I remember correctly, it revolves around the galactic core and the galaxy is moving somewhere also.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Just because you can work it out with mass doesn't mean you can work it out with every ability to determine reality.

The principle of relativity holds, as far as I know, for gravity and EM, also for space and time. Without breaking out the books I'm not sure about strong and weak nuclear forces. But gravity and EM is responsible for A LOT of our daily lives. So yeah. It should work out with everything else.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its nothing but a pointless mental backflip to avoid.. what exactly?

To avoid the one pitfall that ruins science and turns it into religion.

Certainty is the bane of the scientific method. Belief in Truth (capital T) or ultimates of some kind -- that's faith-thinking, not science-thinking. Skepticism and doubt are the scientist's most important lenses. We can't give those up without ceasing to be scientists.

Thanks for that. I certainly see that I didn't communicate clearly on that, but I tried to bring up the same point earlier.

Isonaroc wrote:
Biggest brothel? Are you talking about Pascha? One of my co-workers had her birthday party there at the strip club portion and was SUPER pissed they wouldn't let her upstairs.

Yup, that one!

Hm... It was not just Pauling, but even his own boss and he had to fight a real uphill-battle even after his ideas got track.

But you are certainly not wrong, in the long run he won over the community. What I was saying is the following: Even "peer review" doesn't protect a good new idea if the community doesn't accept it because of some unwritten rule. In the long run, you may win, but in the short run it will seem like running against a wall.

Rrright. Because peer review is spotless.
Just remember Dan Shechtman, the Nobel-Prize winning "quasi-scientist" (quote from Linus Pauling).

But I agree it is one of the best methods we have at the moment.


Show me you know what you're talking about. Don't tell me you know what you're talking about.

As I am not fond of doing this in public, you'll get a PM.

I think I have said anything I can say. I have learned something from the discussion, so it was a good experience. :)


You seem to have mixed up getting people to UNDERSTAND a scientific concept with BELIEVE a scientific concept. (also in a very nitpicky and gotcha manner

Compare how well any other idea spreads. Do you believe in hinduism Buddism? Egyptian gods?

All over the world people DO believe in atoms, electrons, photons, f=ma math, engineering... regardless of their religion. No, its not perfect, but in a running theme here just because its not perfect doesn't mean that its not a lot better.

First: Believing without understanding is not a good basis for being a scientist. And if you are not a scientist in a special field, it's really uncommon to always be skeptical of this particular field. Also something already studied.

Second: A lot of people believe in either the christian god or the muslimic god. Are they now correct because it is a running theme? I would strongly advise against using "a lot of people believe in" as proof of something.

In 2013, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology​
I thought this was a science discussion. *drumroll*
But you seem to imply that putting it above other ideas is automatically inappropriate... and its not. Science has more than earned the top dog spot on an hierarchy of how we learn stuff. Its hard to overstate how much better it is than any other method.

Ehm... Yeah... What should I say to that.

You clearly have no idea about "learning" (learning is, in general, a very complex process and doesn't involve so much the scientific process, instead it has a lot to do with cultural roots and emotional states) and you are obviously dismissive of anything not from the field of science (Fun Fact: In german "Wissenschaft" includes not only natural science but also art, history, etc.), which I find a little bit odd.

But I understand now more clearly your points. You seem to be exactly the person I'm worried about: Someone who is so convinced of the superiority of his own thinking that he cannot see or accept anything else, which is in itself a very un-scientific way of thinking.

Just to be clear: To get a PhD in physics education, you have to use the scientific method and adhere to it. I wouldn't have passed the comittee without proof, that I think like a scientist. So, I'm not against the method. But I am against this superiority complex. Because the scientific method is such a great method, it doesn't need this kind of "support". Or: Science doesn't need blind followers.

Religious folks don't like having their ideas rejected while science's ideas get embraced and try to set up an equivalency between the two by this dishonest argument.

Aha. You are really trying to sell that ideas of scientists get embraced? Really? I'm sorry, I work in a field called physics education and I had to laugh really hard. Just read this:

It is really friggin' hard to get people to accept scientific theories!

And the main problem is: Once you get something in the head of people, it is stuck there and is very resistant to change: "Gravity is like this or that, so it should work the same everywhere!" or "Light moves in a straight line, so what is this nonsense about gravitational lenses!"

You believe that ordinary people, not trained in the scientific method, think like scientists. This is very naive. People search for absolute truths. They want stable worlds where things get explained and not be questioned further.
You seem to believe that I didn't read the sources correctly, let me quote from the second one:

In 2013, a study published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology​ found that when subjects were stressed, they were more likely to agree to statements typifying scientism such as, “the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge.” When people felt anxious, they esteemed science more highly than calmer subjects did, just as previous experiments have shown to be the case with religious ideals.
In these cases, beliefs about science may be defended emotionally, even if they are false, as long as they provide a reassuring sense of order. That is to say, beliefs about science may be defended thoughtlessly—even unscientifically.

So it seems that ordinary people use science as a remedy in the same way people use religion. And you don't find that objectionable?


So no, the problem isn't that i don't "get" what you're saying, the problem is a complete, total, and utter bait and switch....which I'm leaning towards concluding is deliberate.

Hm... So you are saying I use a dishonest discussion strategy? I would disagree (naturally). At least not intentionally, maybe you and I are not communicating clearly...

Let me define "Scientism" as I understand it (and as it was used in the aforementioned conference):
Scientism is "inappropriately privileging science and scientific method above all else".
That definition is what I had in mind. I am aware that in the Wikipedia Link, a lot more definitions were inherent, but I thought that by using the QZ-Link, it would get clearer.
Do you still think I try to intentionally confuse things? I'm happy to clarify myself more if that is the case.

So, you clearly didn't get the difference between science and scientism? Scientism isn't about proof and data checking, it's about "I read in the NY times that scientists say that genetics do X, so it has to be true".
I know that I maybe abbreviated that a little bit in my above post, but know you should get the idea.

And yes, scientism is like religion. Because for scientism-believers, the scientist is as unfallible as for religious people some priests. And thats bad. ates ion/

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, with modern computers it is relatively easy to use a geocentric world? Everything is relative, so you could describe the movement of the sun by using the eart as a fixated point. Even planetary movement. I wouldn't say it's very smart, but it is doable. ;)


Most a stuff in this thread is very enjoyable to read. I just wanted to add something in the mix: I recently watched a very interesting presentation in the European Science Education Research Conference about a big percentage of people who accept science and believe in scientism. First one: Great! Second one: Eh... Not so great.

So, what is scientism and why is it a problem: Scientism is the belief that because science says something, it has to be true. It's very similar to the notion "If the priest says it, it has to be true". In this particular presentation, it was paired with belief in creationism (which only about 4% of the students accepted), because the presenter didn't really like the idea of scientism.
I agree with her. Scientism is a bad thing. It has two main problems:
1. It dilutes the idea of "There is nothing like absolute truth in science"
2. It makes it easy for unscientific people to attack science, if something was proven wrong
So where does scientism come from? People want absolute truths. And if they don't use religion anymore (because it has bad reputation), they turn to the "next big thing"... Science.

Whats your opinion on that?


Oh, and one other thing to add: Religious beliefs are not contraindicatory to being a scientist. Only if you use your beliefs in science it gets wonky. ;) I am an active member in the greek orthodox church and I have a (still fresh) PhD in physics education, so for me it certainly works.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I find this funny. When I translated the UC rules along with a few houserules for my Kingmaker players, I used the german term for brothel, "Bordell". Nobody even paused on that, they even built one now. And no, no all male-group. They were all like "Ohhh, a trapper or hunter needs a tavern and a brothel after being away from civilization for so long", which almost certainly the way it was and is (you see a lot of red-light stuff on trucker routes).
But then, it's the whole european-american difference again: Over here, nudity or sexuality is (especially for older folks) a lot more OK than violence and death.

And even with kids: Brothels are thing that exists? I mean, even without the internet, if I take the train from Cologne to my former apartment, I would ride along one of the biggest brothels in Germany. And no, it doesn't hide itself. It even advertises, especially to trade fair (or soccer world cup) visitors. And the kids see that, so a brothel is not that mysterious. :D

I would just say, this belongs to all the stuff you need a group contract for. If you or your group are uncomfortable with brothels: Use Dance Halls. This is OK and nothing to be worried about. For example, I'm not super keen about explicit sexual descriptions, so use "fade to black" a lot.

Just to add: Turgan is not a very harsch or grim 'n gritty GM. Thats the main reason for my indecisiveness. If he were really harsch, I would not be as doubtful...

I think one of the main problems is, that we as a group don't use enough group tactics without first discussing them. Black Magga, we talked about what to do. Book 4 Boss, not so much. So we basically just went in and flailed around, which meant death for mine and another character. I'm pretty sure that this was a really bad idea... (And the first death in Book 4 was also alont the same lines: "Should we wait and heal up? Ah, whatever, stone giants are easy.")

So yeah, IF I'm coming back, I will make sure to talk about that. Maybe get the Sorcerer or our Inquisitor to use "Telepathic Bond".

Oh, one of things I have to think about (at least a little bit) is that I will probably not make it to the weekly mid-week game sessions for some months. Until I can do Home-Office in my new job, I will probably have to commute around 4-5 hours... I'm quite sure the US people here have to laugh, but for us Europeans that is kind of a big deal. :)
So, should I create a new character just for 2-3 sessions? Or is this maybe a good point for dear Salusko (my dead character) to try to live a little bit more sedate life after his last death before getting sucked in again?

Turgan wrote:
You did not die in Kingmaker, but in RotRl, Jeremias.

Ouch. I'm an idiot... Probably because I brought up the Kingmaker druid thing.

On a sidenote: The GM was nice enough to give us the opportunity to raise both dead characters (Yeah, another one died too). So it is more a personal decision.

I'm still torn. On one hand, my character is one of only two in the group who is in the game from the beginning, but on the other hand, he maybe wants to go to his goddess? He died fighting the good fight...
Oh, its a really difficult question.

Hello Folks!

The question is in the title... I am struggling with that question myself. As a DM I let the players do it as long as they pay for it, which can lead to interesting cases (e.g. the druid reincarnating as an Orc).
But now I am in the situation where I died two times in the same AP book, Book 4 of Kingmaker. First in an ill-advised chase after the intital attack and again because the final big bad concentrated his attacks on me. As I died once before (some redneck ogres critted me), I'm thinking: Is this really how it should play out?

Is it really like that, that death and ressurection comes cheap after Level 12? Or would you think, that this leads to a revolving afterlife-door kind of world which should be avoided? What are your thoughts on this matter, not only my personal situation but also from a broader perspective, especially the IC and OOC impact on the world/game?

sadie wrote:

I've replied to Mr Booze via PM. Another German translator is very welcome. Hopefully I'll be able to publish the German version soon.

To anybody else interested in helping to translate, into any language, just drop me a line. The French translation effort could use a few more hands?

I didn't see that. Work all done? If not, just send me a message.

Arachnofiend wrote:
You'll be fine. This errata was made to force Arcanists to use charisma, which you are apparently already doing. I'm more worried about my 5 charisma Arcanist... I'm guessing PFS isn't giving a free retraining for this, sigh.

If that is really the case, I'm totally OK. I just wasn't sure. And I wanted to use it a lot more, but I didn't have the chance to just yet. My fellow group members are so powerful...

Hey Folks,

I know, there are a few other threads open at the moment... But I didn't want to hijack them.

I have a question and need advice: Should I do something about my Occultist after the last errata?
I took "Consume Magic Items" as an exploit...

I have a Charisma of 18 (I love High CHA characters...), so I get 5 uses of the exploit. Is that enough? What is the experience around here?

I'm interested in adventures. One of the biggest selling points of Pathfinder are the AP, at least for me. What's your stance, will there be adventures?

I love this thing! I searched for a long time for something like that and I will definitely use it today. Thank you very much!

And, contributing to the discussion: It depends on the font size of the webpage. I tried to shrink it (Firefox) and voilá: The missing drop-down entries show!

Mister Fluffykins wrote:
Yeaaaaaah; having DMed Kingmaker, I can tell you that I don't remember seeing anything like that on any random encounter chart - or written into any of the books (at least not that early on.) Seems to me like your DM added in something extra and y'all got toasted for it.

Exactly that. I DM Kingmaker and three Hags and troll skeletons? No idea...

Ability Inheritance:
I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Maybe for every 4-6 points over average give the kids a +1 to this particular score? Averaged between both spouses...
Or you take a very simplistic model of the Mendelian inheritance. So you would have kids which would resemble mother or father.

Scientific advancement:
The more stringent advancement tree of older Civ Games is how we see it from our modern POV, the Civ Web is more realistic. But "keeping it simple" would sugggest to use the older tree.

Then there was the question of the speed of scientific advancement. Sure, modern research is faster (maybe because of a bigger population and less people needed to be farmers), but there was a lot of advancement on most stages in history. Metallurgy and architecture comes to mind, just look at the transition of metal weapons in the middle ages or the transition of romanesque churches to gothic churches. Or look at the 200 years from 150 BC to 50 AC in the roman empire. Completely changed political landscape, military structure, philosophical leanings, etc. And there were a lot of people who were firmly opposed to every change...
What I'm trying to say: 200 years can be a long time in real history. If you have no qualms about marching forward and being progressive, consequences be damned, you can get from the first human body reflex (pupil reflex, 1751) and Franklins kite experiment (1752) to nuclear weapons and human flight (1951). And thats truly impressive.

Looks really great and fun!

A few things were unclear to me:
- How is the technology tree shaped? A graphic would be nice.
- I didn't understand how the PCs could get higher-level starting characters and more starting equipment. Or at least the rules were hazy to me.
- What is the time-frame? Should the campaign be stretched over 200 years? Is aging of PCs a thing?

And an idea:
- Dynasties and families. Incorporating rules about having kids and inheriting traits or such things. Even material goods like heirloom weapons and spellbooks. That is something you almost never see.

Overall, a great concept and I really love the idea. But then, I was always a sucker for Civ-Games.

Mythic crafting just allows you to use any craft feat.

But thats alright. I don't plan on crafting staves for something else.

I just calculated a little more: Scrolls get much more cost-effective if you have time for the consuming... At least 2nd-Level-Scrolls. :)

Hm, my rules question stands unanswered? Is it really so easy and I am right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I will have every crafting feat soon. Mythic game.

But yeah, thats a good consideration. I'm just wired to think that using consumables is bad. I always finished CRPGs with TONS of potions and scrolls.
I think I will go with the staff because I like the feeling and don't want to start sky-high with the character (creating a new one on level 7). But I have also planned to buy scrolls in bulk and later make them in bulk.

Hi Folks!

I have a rules question and wanted to ask for advice.

First the rules question:

Consume Magic Items (Su): The arcanist can consume the power of potions, scrolls, staves, and wands, using them to fill her arcane reservoir. Using this ability is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. When using this exploit, the arcanist adds a number of points to her arcane reservoir equal to 1/2 the level of the spell contained in the item (o-level and 1st-level spells do not recharge the arcanist's arcane reservoir). If used on a potion or scroll, the item is destroyed. If used on a wand, the wand loses 5 charges; if it has fewer than 5 charges, the wand is destroyed and the arcanist gains no benefit. If used on a staff, it loses 1 charge and the arcanist gains a number of points to his arcane reservoir equal to the level of the highest-level spell the staff can cast using only 1 charge; if the staff has no spells that require only 1 charge, the arcanist cannot consume that staff 's magic. No more than 1 charge can be drawn from a staff each day in this way. Points gained in excess of the arcanist's reservoir's maximum are lost. This exploit has no effect on magic armor, weapons, rings, rods, wondrous items, or other magic items besides those noted above.

Does it really mean, that staves are not subject to the "you get points equal to 1/2 of the spell level"? So, a Staff of Minor Arcana (Shield 1 Charge) can supply Arcane points?

And secondly, if a have days with combat and days without, is this really such a bad deal?

I would say no, the location has to be fixed in the time-space-continuum... But thats only an opinion, no RAW anwser.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Knight Magenta wrote:

Fun fact, If your target is within 30ft you can sneak attack with your trebuchet.

Suprise! Bet he didn't see that coming.

There must be something in the rules against this!

I didn't know this fact and find it very interesting. Especially for the mental attributes. This gives me a lot more information for RP as both a GM and a player.

I don't use 3rd party books. For my last campaign I went with "PRD only". No particular reason, but I was always wary of 3rd party stuff and sometimes it can be pretty overwhelming and mind-boggling.

That said, posting his build could net you better help. ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, the situation looks a little bit railroady. If I would be *forced* to do something I don't want to, I would be peeved. She was *forced* to go into the tunnels.
I don't like the "The DM hints"-game. It is a pet peeve of mine and I even go to deliberate lengths to avoid this. Give me an IC clue, but OOC clues I will ignore. For me, the fun is to play the game, nut just being told where to go and then roll some dice to kill bad guys.

That has, by the way, nothing to do with V:tM LARP. I've done that since '99 (not the past three years) and you can have groups with very differing play-styles. In one group, it would be more railroady, seemingly like your gaming group, in another group it would be much more open-ended. Guess, which one I preferred. ;)

What I suspect it is a difference in play-style between her and you. Your group seems very democratic and cooperative and you have no mechanisms (IC or OOC) to deal with internal strife. She seems to like internal discussions, even having a very stron opinion about things. That is more of an OOC issue, you should just talk about that. Be like "We don't really want this part of RP games, could you keep that out too?". Because be assured, for some of us, thats an important part.

If all of this is IC, you should not force her character into the tunnels and then not give her any loot. And in the mentioned fight, you should not have killed her enemies. She doesn't want to play with you, thats fine. We have more important enemies over here.

Interesting build, I would probably yank it... Quick question: Canny defense, granted by the kapenia dancer, allows you to use Intelligence as a bonus to AC. Is that also altered by Eldritch Scion?

Uwotm8 wrote:


Sir Google wrote:


adjective & pronoun
1.used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

2.further; additional.

Thanks for the evidence for my understanding... Not sure what you wanted to prove. :)

Uwotm8 wrote:
Then I went to show the consistency between built time and resources to BP equivalence line up such that there is a strong case for it being *a* single farm. There simply isn't enough labor, resources, or GP value in a single BP for many of farms. So, don't say I'm conflating things when I'm showing clear association indirect or otherwise.

OK. If you want to understand that, cool. Then in your game world only one farm is allowed per hex. If thats sits right with you, sure. This farm had a cost of 2 BP, which could be converted (a loss is implied) to 8000 gold. But if thats your game world...

Still, by RAW "other improvements" means exactly this: "other". Not "any". Even I get that. And I'm not a native speaker...

And if you even care about game balance: Having multiple farms stacking is very, very wonky. Claiming a hex and building a farm will pay itself (if consumption is higher than 1) after three months: Pay 3 BP (farm+hex), raise consumption by 1 (hex) and decrease consumption by 2(farm), net consumption -1, after three months you have your intial investment back (again, if consumption was higher than 1). So, farms are great, even if you have to claim more hexes.

Chemlak wrote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.

A farm is not an "other improvement" to another farm. It's the same improvement. Therefore no stacking.

This. Exactly this.

Especially as farms have a very big impact on your economy... A kingdom with 9 hexes of farms can support standard edicts (4 consumption) and a city with 5 districts, that would be 45,000 citizens. That is big. And only 10 hexes, a very small kingdom.

And yeah, common misconception: A farm improvment is not a single farm, but more like farmlands.
When I translated the rules for my gaming group (english to german) I used exactly these terms.

What I have to revisit: The part about combining farms and mines and such.

I'm not sure if you were aware of the condescending tone in your last post. Probably you were. You are right, yes, I read the spell wrong. I admit that. As said earlier, it can always be my reading competence (non-native speaker). Next time just give this argument the first time. Without being like that.

With that said, the bracers sound awesome. I will get them ASAP.

It only works for bows and crossbow. So, with a firearm, it doesn't give you anything.

@N. Jolly
It could be my reading competence. But I thought you meant all 'slingers.


The Bracers would be dead weight on my gunslinger. It only works for crossbows.
And I compared my suggestions with the charm bracelet he suggested. :)

Why do you think "Bracers of Falcon Aim" are so great? What do they give to pure Gunslingers?
Wouldn't it be nicer to have something like this:
[url] er-s-bane[/url]

Considering the bad consequences of being enchanted...

Or this:
[url] master-s-bracers[/url]

And for shoulders, look at this:
[url] o-gunfighter-s[/url]

What do you think of Cleric dipping for nice domains and spells like "Air Bubble"?

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
What I do think is limiting is thinking that our societies 2 intelligible genders are the only possible ones.

In german we use the term (literally translated) "biological sex" and "social sex". For me, gender and sex was always the same term, but gender is more like the german "social sex", right?

I am a very tolerant person, so I would give everybody the right to call himself whatever he wants, be it male/female/genderfluid.

But in biological terms I cannot understand what this is about. There is a XY chromosome and a XX chromosome. There are rare deviations from this which are mostly not very benign. And thats it.

So, when I talk about "male" and "female", I certainly mean the biological terms. But what a male/female is and how he/she has to behave has nothing to do with that.
So, trans people are, in my mind, people with a problem with a their biological make-up and should be helped, so they can switch in the more appropriate sex.
How someone behaves has nothing to do with "I am a male" or "I am a female". It just has to do something with "I am myself". And everybody should be him- or herself.

Loooong post. What I take from that for RPGs:
In a world where it is more important to survive against enemies I'm not interested in how stereotypically someone behaves, but more if this person kills monsters.
If someone wants to switch genders in game, I still would be "Meh. As long as you can still swing your sword, allright."
But then, I'm OK with female soldiers or female priests and find it laughable that someone would not be OK with that.

On the contrary: I loved the randomness of misfires. My DM didn't, so he gifted me with a reliable rifle with a zero chance of misfires. But I liked them. Not as a balancing mechanic, but as a fluff thing. ;)

@N. Jolly
No, I admit I was a little bit offended.

I'm still not sure it is a great idea. But you seem to have put a lot of thought in it, so good luck. Just go slowly as JoeJ advised to not alienate your players.
And one advice: If they are immature about the topic, drop it like a hot potato. Nothing ruins friendship then forcing a talk about things like this (or religion or politics).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@N. Jolly
Really? You asked about what potentially transphobic people would do with your enlightenment idea. And I said, answering that, that as a non-transphobic person I don't care for this enlightenment idea. And you concentrate only on this first statement about how I described me?

I find the idea of a trans person interesting, but what I don't care for is forced enlightenment during a fun game. And thats something you should keep in your mind: Do your players want just a nice game of dungeondelving or a deep roleplaying experience? If it is the latter, have fun with your idea. If it is the former, I wouldn't recommend it.

But your role as a GM certainly is not that of a teacher in social tolerance. Keep that in mind, please.

1 to 50 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>