Giant Gecko

Rimlar's page

38 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've used this concept below for Amazons for about 25 years in my campaigns but Neithan inspired a more concise/realistic explanation (was previously a blessing/curse from a Goddess but the mechanism was vague). He also inspired other fantasy uses of Hybridogenesis and Gynogenesis.

Hybridogenesis:
Many all-female Fey creatures and some all-female monsters reproduce by Hybridogenesis (hemi-clonal sexual reproduction). They mate with males of compatible humanoid races and their offspring (always female) have half of their genes and half of the genes of the donor male. However, when that female offspring produce eggs, all the genes in the eggs come from the female’s own mother and the genes of the donor male are invariably discarded. Each individual is unique due to the influence of the father, but the race is never diluted over generations. Very rarely, a small amount of genetic material from the male may make the jump into the retained half of the genome, and perhaps this accounts for the existence of similar Fey (Nymphs and Dryads, for example). Even more rarely, a male offspring might occur and be able to spread exotic genes into the more mundane species. On Earth, some fish and waterfrogs reproduce this way.

Gynogenesis:
Some all-female monsters have offspring that are total clones, but a sperm cell from a donor species is needed to activate their eggs. This is the case in species that have partially evolved from sexual to asexual reproduction (Parthenogenesis). Since they have no significant relationship with the donor species, they are usually predatory (mates and than kills) or mate with all kinds of exotic creatures (since nearly any sperm will do). On very rare occasions, some genes from the father may become incorporated in the offspring. On Earth, some salamanders reproduce this way.

Amazons:
Amazons are a variety of Humans and Elves who reproduce sexually like others of their race but have a single trait (carried by a mobile gene or a chromosome fragment) that is passed on by Hybridogenesis from mother to daughter. The effect of this trait is to make 19 or 20 of the Amazon’s offspring female. This is achieved through decreased likelihood of conceiving a surviving male making the Amazon somewhat less fertile than their non-Amazon counterparts. Male offspring of an Amazon do not carry the trait and are otherwise normal, only rare. Amazons are often favored, especially by nobility, as mistresses, concubines, and harem girls due to the dramatically decreased chance of having a male heir or pretender.

Other:
I'm toying with the idea of having some non-human species (possibly Halflings?) reproduce sexually with others of the same species but through Hybridogenesis between females and males of other humanoid species.

Rimlar


I can't handle tall elves; I still think orcs are lawful evil. I have zero interest in 4th Ed. Dungeons and Dragoncraft.

Anyone else here know their Tiltowait from their Malikto?

Mike


Male Ass + Female Horse --(high fertility)--> Mule (male always infertile, female rarely fertile).

Female Ass + Male Horse --(very low fertility*)--> Hinny (very rarely fertile and only with other hybrids) *- Male Horses also not attracted to Asses.

Male Lion + Female Tiger ----> Liger (larger than either parent. Females often fertile, males sometimes fertile).

Female Lion + Male Tiger ----> Tigon (Average size of parents, males sterile, females usually fertile)

======================================================================

Male Human + Female Elf --(????)--> ????
Female Human + Male Elf --(????)--> ????

Male Human + Female Orc --(????)--> ????
Female Human + Male Elf --(????)--> ????

Sounds like some interesting options to flesh out a campaign world . . .

Rimlar


Game rules and mechanics are no copyrightable. Straight from the U.S. Copyright Office:

U.S Copyright Office wrote:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

See: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Mike


Just a bit of theological/historical perspective . . . "Deadly" sins are not the most serious sins (the words venal and mortal refer to severity) but are the self-destructive things, often little but cumulative, that lead to ones own spiritual death. As several have posted here, sloth is not what most people think of today. Neither are greed and gluttony. Any destructive money habits fall under greed including hording (not investing or doing good with your wealth), excess spending, wasting money, etc) Want to aquire money for its own sale is a sin, aquiring it to do good is not. In addition Gluttony does not refer exclusively to quantity, but could be an excess of taste, never being satisfied with what others feed you, etc. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in the Screwtape Letters, the woman who always demands that the harried waitress take away half her food instead of just eating half of what is on her plate is a glutton.

Rimlar


Cosmo wrote:
Teach wrote:

Yeah. I almost expected a link to goatse.cx (too bad they stomped that link.)

Not completely.

Ohh how cute!

Mike


Hey, who's been using my Keoghtom's Ointment and why does it smell like a . . .


wrote, directed, and produced Dungeons & Dragons(1983) and Dungeons & Dragons(2000). He also used his powers to convinve TSR to hire Rose Estes.

Mike


Teach wrote:
Yeah. I almost expected a link to goatse.cx (too bad they stomped that link.)

Years ago. You've been thinking about that all this time?

Mike


Geez Rez! Why you hate'n? That thread was not so bad. At least YD figured out is Caps Lock half way through. I enjoy YD's posts; his players are lucky to have him as a DM.

Mike


My house rule has always been the extra +2 for good saves don't accumulate when multi-classing and 4x skills are not taken multiple times. In fact, I've reduced everything, combat, saves, etc. explicitly to an initial bonus if present only taken at first character level and additive fractions at each additional level that do stack between classes (keep track of fracitons but round down for modifier).

Initially, I let multi-classers take one +2 per good save, and this lead to some interesting min-maxing. Now, I just let the +2 apply to the good save(s) of the first character level's class. Additional levels just add +1/2 or +1/3 for good vs poor saves, whether it is the same class or a different class (although the good saves can be different).

Recently, I've changed (skills+INT)X4 at 1st level to (skills+INT)X2 at character levels 1,2, and 3. I spread out the additonal +3X at first level to an additional +1X at the fist three levels. For a single class, the unlimate result is the same at 3rd level. for Multi-clasers, you get a weighted mean of the first 2 or 3 classes. This spreads out the huge impact of skills at lower levels and prevents class regret or min-maxing on which class to take first. Now it makes no difference if your fighter takes that level of Rouge first or not. Instead of Rogue(1)/Fighter(1) having 8x4+2=36 skill points and Fighter(1)/Rogue(1)2x4+8=16, both get 2x2+8x2=20 and will still get an extra 2 or 8 at 3rd level. No longer do you have a party of four 1st level rogues with 32 skill points, one who wants to be a cleric when he grows up, another a Fighter, another a Sorcerer, the last a Wizard. ;)

Mike


Does Erik Mona have a daughter named Lisa (Mona, Lisa)?

Mike


joela wrote:
Rimlar wrote:
I'd love to see a D&D flavor varient of True20.
Could you elaborate?

Well, I'd like to see WIS, INT, and CHR based magic seperated. The ability of casters to have more spells and more D&D flavored spells covered by powers. One possibility raised on True20 boards involves Wizards and Priests spending feets on spell power slots, not specific powers, and praying or studying from spell books to change powers for the day. Most of the work will be fleshing out magic. I'd give wizards a higher power level, but Sorcores a better fatigue check so they can cast more. I'd make defensive/healing priest magic low skil check and low fatigue and possibly make offensive powers a little more difficult/more fatiguing. I'd give priest's expert-like attack/defense vs. adept-like. I'd also give Sorcerer the ability to spend a convicton point to cast any power, even a wizard or priest power, the priest to cast any power alowed to his religion, and the wizard any spell in his book(s).

I also don't like zero toughness progression and 100% defense progression (in proportion to attack) at in True20 base. Toughness progresses a little too fast in Blue Rose. Many of the progressions in B.R. don't come from a clean 1/2, 2/3, or 3/4 points per level. I always smplify my cross-siting rules in D&D and allow fractions to accumulate.

While I love replacing hit points with a toughness save and progrssive injury states, Wealth levels and wealth checks take a lot of fun out of fiding and deviding treasure. I'd hate to defeat a dragon after a hard-won fight and instead of finding a treasure horde full of gold and sliver and gems only be told I found two wealth points! I'd scratch the "wealth check" system completely in favor of a D&D economy.

Mike


I love the True20 rules and thier flexability. I don't like most of their settings, esp. Blue Rose and Caliphate Nights (although I might recommend the latter as practice for any Europeans on the forum . . .).

I'd love to see a D&D flavor varient of True20.

Mike


I'm toying with leaving full AC in place and using the 1/2 AC bonus rounded down not as DR, but as DC (damage conversion--DR for regenerating creatures). A little more survivable at lower levels, and more opertunities to capture/interogate/spare foes.

Mike


Frank Trollman wrote:
Rimlar wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.

Second of all, if you are going to be a pedant, there the burden of actually being correct.

Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, so the Boni is correct for the plual. Bona (neuter plual) would be even more correct for the sense being used. Only Fifth declension nouns end in -es (for both singular and plural).

Mike

Except that you're talking about "adding a bonus" which means that it is a noun. A 3rd declension masculine noun as it happens.

Bonus is an adjective only when used as an adjective, something which is done in English only by Bill and Ted. When was the last time you said "This is some bonus pizza, dude!"

-Frank

You are still wrong. Latin adjectives can be used with assumed nouns, but that does not make them nouns. This is because missing (assumed) nouns are allowed in Latin. Bonus is first/second declension, not third. Also, third declension nouns ending in -us are always neuter (just as those ending in -ix are female, and those ending in -or are masculine).

Like I said there is a burden to be correct when you are a pedant. I honestly don't care how bad your Latin is, except when you go out of the way to correct someone else's correct Latin.

Mike

PS. I agree with your point that using a Latin plural in English when the English plural exists is pretentious.

Nunc est bibendum.


Frank Trollman wrote:
First of all, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni. If we were speaking Latin, which we are not, the plural would be bones (Boh-Nehs). But as we speak English, the plural is bonuses. Saying Boni makes you sound like a pretentious jack.

Second of all, if you are going to be a pedant, there the burden of actually being correct.

Bonus is a first/second declension adjective, so the Boni is correct for the plual. Bona (neuter plual) would be even more correct for the sense being used. Only Fifth declension nouns end in -es (for both singular and plural).

Mike


Unrelated, but it might make progression more uniform and reasonable, would be for the Cleric to choose one domain as primary. The only impact is that the 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. level abilities come at 3rd, 5th, 11th, etc. This makes more level increases "interesing" and prevents other from being such large jumps in power.

Mike


This is something I have been thinking about for years and I think I have finally had the inspiration for a perfect compromise.

A non-spontaneous caster must focus their mind each day by study and concentration or prayer with the engergy/mindset needed to cast spells of a certain power (level) and school of magic.

For example, a third level caster prepairs:
1 Second Level spell: A Conjuration spell (for example)--lost when cast
2 First Level spells: A Evocation spell, a Transmutation Spell (could have been two evocation)
4 Zero Level spells: Pick 4 schools that can be cast at will.

The exact spell from the prepaired school is chosen at casting time.

This is still compatable with Pathfinder specialization benefits (is an oppositon school prepaired that day? If so, benefit lost).

Depending on how you handle metamagic, you could require a spot reserved for a quickened illusion or example (although not all spells of that type may benefit), or be more strict and require the exact modified spell be used in the slot (this keeps metamagic more adventageous for spontanous casters).

You could allow a specialist wizard to use any spell type for a spell of their specialty, but I think this is too powerful vs. spontanous casters, and universalists.

Mike


Here is what I did.

Historicaly, the Gold Aureus weighed about 8g and the silver Denarius weighed about 4.5 grams. One Aureus was worth 25 Denarius, or about 14x by weight. The Bronze Sesterius was worth 1/100th of an Aureus but weighed 30g. (1:375 value by equal weight) Finally the copper Semisses (6g) and As (12g) were 800 and 400 to an Aureus, respectively (1:600 by weight). I also found a source that said that the Romans fixed the value of Brass at twice that of Bronze.

With this data, I tried to find the most realistic metals for a decimalized system based on equal weight coins. I came close. I came up with:

Copper 96% Cu/4% Sn worth 0.01 sp (with a metal value of 0.02 times silver (value of lowest denomination is 100% specie))
Brass 60% Cu/40% Zn worth 0.1 sp (value 50% specie/50% fiat)
Silver 98% Ag worth 1 sp (equivilent to a D&D GP) (value 50% specie/50% fiat)
Gold 98% Au worth 10 sp (value 50% specie/50% fiat)
My only deviation from the equal coin weight system was Platinum. I made a pp worth 10gp, but it weighs 2 coin weight. (5:1 metal value--the only ratio I could support historically)

The coin weight is also the standard measure for things like spices. It is exactly 100th of a pound (4.5 grams) copying the Roman Denarius.

I use lower case abreviations to keep me from conflating my system with the D&D system (pp, gp, sp, bp, cp vs. PP, GP, SP, CP) so I know when to convert and when I've already converted. gp=PP, sp=GP, bp=SP, cp=CP.

Interestingly, gold has about twice the density of silver, so if you have 10:1 for equal weight coins, you can have some cultures at 20:1 for equal size coins (reflecting the ratio in AD&D).

My main civilization is an allience of 4 more or less good kingdoms known as the Quattuorvirate surrounded by evil powers. They consist of a small but very advanced seafaring kingdom (Tyco) founded by refugees from Atlantis, and three kingdoms (Saedonthi, Aenothi, and Flosiphia) that fractured from a great Greco-Roman type empire along regional/cultural/economic divisions. The empire and the Tycans fought a brutal war over the narrow strip of land claimed by the Tycans to a stalemate but the war also caused the Empire to fracture politically after the imperial familly was wiped out. There are a lot of cultural differences but the shared threats create a good deal of cooperation including a shared monitory system.

Saedonthi is the core of the old empire with forrests and elves in the north, plains to the west, and desert to the east and South (with mountains in the south). A royal house from the desert nomads with some shared imperial blood was brought in to rule (bringing a bit of Greyhawk Arir and Dune-ish flavor).
Flosiphia is North of Saedonthi and is made up of an inner (Eastern) mountian region with barbarians, central (roling hills), and outer (western) region with human and halfling farmers. It is modest and agrarian and ruled by a network of Earles and other Nobles.
Tyco lies along the sea north of central and inner Flosiphia and is ruled by a semi-republican Senate (some seats are elected, some reserved for interests like military and clergy) which elects a King for life but with an early probation period in which he can be removed (modeled after Sweden in that reguard).
Aenothi lies west of Saedonthi and is mostly plains and grasslands and is less populated and has a frontier feel to it. It is ruled by a Dutchess and is very dynamic economically. Also within Aenothi are a secretive Dwarvern kingdom who maintain one shared dwarf/human city at their frontier with the rest of their mountains off limits to non-dwarves, a 13th Orc tribe disconnected from the other 12 distant tribes that tends to LN instad of LE and tends to Druidism (I never adopted Chaotic Orcs in the 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed transition), and a cluster of hills that house the Gnome population. There is also an independant powerful human city state within Aenothi that does not submit to the Dutchess of the Quattorviarate. Aenothi is seperated from Saedonthi by a powerful river and from the north west corner of Saedonthi as well as Flosiphia by a vast marshy delta somewhat modeled after the Greyhawk hool. It is ruled by a weak Plair who is officially a client of Tyco (because his distant ancestor was bribed to leave the empire) but who has divided loyalties and little power to keep evil and chaos at bay. Every once and a while, Tyco gets embarrassed and "cleans house" but they more often rely on encouraging adventures to handle it.

This allows for a fairly stable homeland but one with a lot of politics and intrigue, disputed boarder areas that become lawless because neither power is able to have a strong presense, etc. There are also the epic threat that can come from the various evil lands (some ordred, some disordered) which surround. It is also a good background for a non-fudal "classical" system in the three old kingdoms and a fairly modern/anachronistic system in the exotic Atlanitan kingdom.

On the Western part of the continent, however, there is a cluster of very feudal/medieval kingdoms which run the full range from a Nordic feel in the north, Alpine in the middle,and the southern most part has a slavic/gothic/Transylvanian feel. There is also one kingdom made of up mixed "European" and Atlantian blood but are only a little more advanced than their neighbors.

Thraxus wrote:
Rimlar wrote:

I did historical research for my coin system and I made silver my coin of commerce(equal to 1 D&D GP) and gold my coin of account. All but the least valuable coins have a value that is half specie and half fiat (as were most coins from Roman times to the 1700s). The lowest coins are 100% specie and 0% fiat (also precidented both historicaly and presently--even negative fiat value).

Mike

I have also played with silver being the primary coinage. It is an easy change. Cost in gp become cost in sp, sp become cp, and cp become bits (I had copper coins that could be broken in smaller pieces - bits or "beggar's bits").

You have to scale back treasure awards some, but the result is that a masterwork longsword cost 31 gold and 5 silver instead of 315 gold and a +1 longsword cost 231 gold and 5 silver instead of 2,315 gold.

It does not help things much at high levels (an amulet of the planes would cost 12,000 gold insteas of 120,000 gold), but is still an improvement.


I lucked out and found the 1.0 zip in a temp directory. I have both now. It will be interesting to look back at the evolution of the rules.

Mike


Tarren Dei wrote:
Rimlar wrote:


There is a ton of research on the subject.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/THOUH/thornhill-preface.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_38/ai_75820043/pg_1
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/92013847/ABSTRACT
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

All of those are by the same couple of guys, right?

I didn't do an extensive literature search for a tangental subject. My point was that the general statement that rape is not about sex is not uncontroversial in the scientific community. I was not making an appeal to authority but providig a few sources because soneone requested them. I don't see anyone requesting sourves for the initial assertion.

Sexual violence is a signficant part of reproduction among some species of animals.

The previously mentined concepts of orcs commiting organized rape raids or capturing prisoners for reproduction is not that far-fetched. It could certainly add an element of "damnsel in distress" to some adventures.

Mike


I'm suprised that no one has brought up USCO FL-108 ( http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html ).

Mike


GentleGiant wrote:


Care to divulge this research? Because according to that only attractive females in their 20-30's get raped (which I'm sure is very comforting to e.g. all the elderly people being raped every year).
Which any kind of inquiry into the subject matter quickly obliterates.

I said the risk declines with age. I did not say it goes away.

There is a ton of research on the subject.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/THOUH/thornhill-preface.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_38/ai_75820043/pg_1
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/92013847/ABSTRACT
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

According to "Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992". Victim breakdown is as follows:
29% were less than 11 years old
32% were between 11 and 17
22% were between 18 and 24
7% were between 25 and 29
6% were older than 29
3% age was not available

Peak fertility in the US is from about 16-22. The rape figures are skewed younger due to vulnerability of minors, but for women they do drop off rapidy as fertility decreases.

Here is another paper that tried to control for other factors and theories (older women engaing in less risky behavior, associating with older men, etc.) and still found a bias toward rapists choosing younger women: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/7/1/1/p1271 15_index.html

Mike


"Feydar". Don't forget the Feydar! I hope it is rear looking Feydar because those forest dwelling little buggers are always trying to creap up on me from behind.


Keep it. Do want!

Mike


BiggusGeekus wrote:
Gavgoyle wrote:
Also, there's historical precedent in the stone age. Us homo sapiens found a little Neanderthal lovin' from time to time. Granted, we exterminated all of them later, but lets not bicker and argue about who killed who.

There is zero genetic evidence of the former and the latter is just speculation.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Gavgoyle wrote:


Okay then... What, as a human (which I assume you are), would compel you to make a she-orc squeal like a pig and beget a brood of half-orcs?
Rape is about power not desire so my answer would be 'hatred'.

Research does not bare this out. A woman's risk of rape goes up and down with her peak fertility and more attractive women are at a greater risk. It's a long-standing political mantra but it is not true.


Handle it like Armor Training, but instead be "un-Armor Training" have the fighter type select one or the other at the beginning.

Mike


Interesting . . .

I'd like to see the metal armor restruction toned down or removed. Possibly it prevents wild shape but no other handicap.

Mike


I just downloaded 1.1 and accidently overwrote 1.0. Can I download it again?

Mike


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did historical research for my coin system and I made silver my coin of commerce(equal to 1 D&D GP) and gold my coin of account. All but the least valuable coins have a value that is half specie and half fiat (as were most coins from Roman times to the 1700s). The lowest coins are 100% specie and 0% fiat (also precidented both historicaly and presently--even negative fiat value).

Mike


Any good 3.5 source (including the SRD and Monster Manuals) break out all the contributions to AC. Backwards compatability is easy. Just remove the contribution from AC. I'd add up all naural armor and armor points ad divide by 2 to get the DR (X/-).

This is more backwards compatable than CMB.

I'd like to give every class and monster an Avoidance modifier to AC equal half their base attack bonus so that the percentage of attacks that hit do not increase too rapidly with level when fighting appropriate opponents.

Mike


They work well. I modify them a bit:

Straight core SRD but dead is -(10+CON_Modifier) HP instead of -10 HP.
Chance of becoming stable is (10+CON_Modifier)% instead of 10%.
Chance of recovery is (10_CON_Modifier)% instead of 10%.
Recipient's CON bonus or penalty applies to Heal checks (as well as the healer's WIS bonus or penalty).

Mike


One could modify the new system to say you get one level added to all your class skills of the level you just gained (and half to all others on your list).

Mike


I only allow the +2 bonus for a strong save the first time a class gives a strong save. No reason a 3rd or 4th level multiclass should have the strong saves of a 8thor 10th level single class.

Mike


I've found hit points creap upwards throughout the campaign as characters who roll low get weeded out.

Why not do something for 1st level and then award average HP for each additional level (d6:4, d8:5, d10:6). Barbarian can get +1 per level as a class level (or though a free feat) and keep the combat=HP simplification without exceptions.

Mike


I like the new positive/negative energy thing and don't consider it an abuse at all whether undead are present or not. The friendly fire aspects are game balancing, no different than flame strike or fireball.

Mike