SigniferLux's page

I for one am for free speech. This banning of words is just wrong. 100% of the time in all circumstances.

The only problem I can see is people will say things on the internet they wouldn't normally have the guts to say to someones face.

I will second this. People need to understand the difference of in-game and out-of-game.

Speaking from personal view, i have lost my father. Still, i use "fathers" in my background, and my "fathers" have died horribly, have turned to liches, have become arch-villains, have killed my character, and all Hell of things. Half of their stories of what they became were even designed by the ST.

Banning a word because "it reminds me of" is one step before slavery. If your character is raped, he/she has to react accordingly. You are not roleplaying yourself. No one raped you, no one killed you, no one slashed you, no one fireballed you.

Words are what those who hear them understand them to be. An African friend of mine was calling me "Whitey" and i have been calling him "Blackey" for a long time while we were roleplaying. Neither i enslaved him, nor did he.

I could start a whole discussion about slavery and rape, but these forums are dedicated to another subject, on which i will focus.

For the forums part, the moderators have created them. It is their "home", and they set the rules. Whoever doesn't like this, can just not visit the forums again.

As for my direct reply to the OP. You must understand the differences of words, beliefs and actions.

If your kid "raped a few kobolds" with his critical, then he is just using a different word to express something. It is his/her choice of wording and the only thing i see would be right to do is to talk with him/her about it, not ban it. Children tend to do what their parents don't allow them to.

If your kid actually like raping people on the street, then you need to teach him about it, not just stop him from using the word.

If your kid really raped someone, then he/she really needs professional help.

So, i was browsing through forums and came to see the same thing that was bugging me about skills lately.

Some of them are worthless. Although i like roleplaying and i always run games based on in instead of combat oriented ones, i have found out that some skills exist only for rare and specific situations.

I find it ridiculus to see wizards who have points to spare for swim and climb, while fighters "cannot actually swim".

So, i ended up to these:

- Swim + Fly + Climb = Athletics

Why: Swim is really situational and heavily depends on whether the campaign is based on a world with lots of water and adventures near water or not.

Climb i find really situational too. Mostly useful for world of low magic, where you can't have fly as 3rd level spell and feather fall as 1st.

Now Fly, this is a skill i never understood it's existance. Unless you are playing in a really high magic world, where you can be a winged creature or have 30 wands of fly with you i see no purpose for it.

- Handle Animal + Ride = Handling

Why: They are both identical and none is worth if the DM is not adding a lot of animals that are not "for xp". And, seriously, unless you have a special mount, riding a default horse with, like, 10-20 hp is two arrow shots worth and you go flying.

- Also i personally prefer to roleplay how players try to convince pcs and such so i will add:

Intimidate + Sense Motive + Diplomacy + Bluff = Psychology

Why: I primarily use those for their basic non-rp uses (like diplomacy for fast-talk, bluff for feint, etc.).

- How i use them: Putting a rank in one of these is like putting a rank in the whole group, though you use each individual's modifier and wheter it's a class skill, you got a skill forcus on it, etc.

Excuse me for the long post but i would really like some opinions on these.