Tiona Daughtry's page

There are many reasons I’m utterly disgusted with the direction that an entertainment industry which is almost the only viable socialization many disabled people have, is making it even harder to, without ‘houseruling’ properly represent characters with distinctly imbalanced abilities as potential heroes. Yes, I know some people get tired of my argument, but I’m going to make it again, and make it clearly. You see, if we have to *houserule* ourselves into a game, because, RAW we cannot be counted ‘heroes’, we aren’t being represented, and we aren’t being seen. And the last is scarily important, not only for *us* to see ourselves, but for the rest of the world to start seeing that we have value.

It's only been a handful of years since Fox News was trying to say that poor people having a refrigerator and a microwave meant that they weren’t ‘really poor’, or ‘really needy’. I regularly end up encountering people online in intellectual discussions (wherein I usually am more than capable) who seem to think that my relying on disability payments to survive, when I cannot work a standard job is ‘stealing from them’. I often see people judging me when I walk into a store, force an electrical shopping cart out of where they’ve been jammed so that they’re otherwise unable to be gotten so that I can ride it. Yes, I’m physically strong enough to pull it out a few feet. One of the many things that I deal with is asthma, as well as severe coordination issues that often leave me slipping and falling unexpectedly. But, because I don’t ‘look disabled’, people act like I’m some kind of monster taking services from other people. And that’s why letting *them* see that we come in all forms, and can be the pivot ‘hero’ position in a difficult situation is important. If they do not see us as having a valid, viable, part of their regular media consumption, they’re likely to assume that we’re worthless, helpless, a waste of space and drain on resources from ‘normal people’.

When you cannot see someone else as a valuable and valid person, that’s when and where abuse comes in. If people do not regularly see that broad judgments about a person’s abilities is wrong, they won’t ever learn to value those who are unlike them. It creates or increases poor treatment of those othered, and that is never a good society. So, really, it is in everyone’s best interests to start showing people of mixed abilities in media forms, and yes, gaming is a media form.

I personally feel disenfranchised by the hobby of roleplaying as a whole because it’s so much harder, without instituting house rules (which doesn’t get the spotlight that’s needed on the issue) to play a character with a realistic (as in, mimicking our real world) set of strengths and weaknesses. I feel betrayed when I see a major company claim that they’re ‘promoting diversity’ but have built rules around systems that do not allow for characters to have those significant differences in ability. And, further, I feel that I should no longer financially support an industry that is silently sending the message to the world that *I* and those like me are not worthwhile, that we’re worthless, and a waste of resources. Considering how much money I put into ttrpgs over the years, I’d say that the industry has benefited from my support. I’m certainly not the only one who feels this way, either. We’re tired of being told that we’re ‘too much effort’, when we’ve been having to adapt to a world our bodies and minds aren’t built for. We’re the ones who have been making adjustments for others, and the ones we’ve been making adjustments for are the ‘normals’. It’s time that we got some reciprocity.

As for showing absolute viable disabled characters? I do that, repeatedly in my writing. Of characters in books I already released (self-published on amazon), I have quite a few characters with distinct limitations, differences. Heck, the very first of my books, Dragon Fang, Phoenix Fire, had the battle priest who was also the tactician of the group having the distinct limitation of being both near-sighted and night-blind. More, that the big trial he had to pass when they’d gone into the tomb of the Dragonmage? He had to face the weaknesses of his faith wherein he could summon *no light*, and had to just have faith as he moved, to recognize that sometimes we don’t have the answers, or can’t use them. But he’s far from the only one.

Selah Calasti spent the time from about 2 years old to her mid 30s suffering from a curse which left her physically withered to the extent that she had little muscle mass, almost no fat at all on her body. Her stats would have had at most a 6 in both str and con, average dex at that time, and a penalty to charisma due to the physical appearance her curse left her with. Years before they found a way to remove the curse, she saved *twice* saved the lives of both a man who was treated as the son of two gods (Kelu’s status there was ‘odd’) and her own husband, not with strength, but learning how to act from a position of weakness, and find ideas, methodology, which worked with her limited abilities, and did all of that within about a 2 month span. By the time she’d had the curse removed, she’d faced death so many times that she was no longer fazed by the idea of dying, because she knew that she should have died many times already.

Beyond that, in books already released: Innovator Reliss, who had the minor disability of having lost the final joint of her pinky on one hand due to an accident when experimenting with a machine. Rhiann, son to Selah and Telin, lost his left foot just above the ankle due to a magically enhanced serpent’s bite, and lives with the limp and movement difficulties, despite having an extremely well-crafted prosthesis created by his adopted daughter, within finding out the truth of her knowledge. That prosthesis is actually melded to his leg, which helps, but is not perfect. His biological daughter, Yossa, was blind from birth, though later regained sight, and I went into the difficulties she had, when she and a cousin were torn from the world they knew and trying to find a way back, including her emotional response to a rescuer saying that she looked like her mom, and she told him that those words meant nothing to her, couldn’t mean anything to her. Because she had no reference point for it.

A couple of books I’m not ready to release have another character, Qedel, who is completely aphonic. Considered cursed by his mother, he’d had to be fostered to Rhiann, and honestly saved his mother from a very dangerous manipulatory game by some assassins from the same group which had initially trained both of his birth parents (they’d left that group long before his birth, changing sides pretty dramatically). Later in his timeline, you see him as a widower with a half-grown daughter, and he ends up courting and redeeming a demon cultist who hadn’t had a choice in what she’d become. Yes, a *mute* person courting, and who has a half-grown daughter that he’s raising, and trying to get things to work out.

So my upset at games refusing to show us without sugar-coating us if we even appear makes a lot of sense. I want us to be seen, accepted, as what we are, and the most important stage in that is to show people that we can be capable, heroic, as we are, and that recognizing that the world is not fair is the best first step in making it a touch fairer. I’m tired of being told that I’m ‘too much effort’. I’ve spent my life trying to cater to normal people, and I’m no longer going to be supporting organizations which pretend to be ‘diverse’ while not supporting our visibility or existence as viable people.

In the end, it's this simple: if we are not allowed at the gaming table without having to 'pretend to be normal', we're not invited in the first place. If we aren't treated as equals, including equal access and appearance, you aren't supporting true diversity. Just as, being a left-handed person, I'm treated as a second-class citizen by companies making a lot of physical tools, I'm being treated as a second-class citizen by companies that do not make accessibility and representation the default, rather than an 'accommodation'.

*grins* I can understand that. My husband also has dyscalculia, so I'm familiar with it. But it's always fun to see how at least some gaming groups don't just 'handwave' magic, and try to come up with logic for *why* a situation works. And, as a writer, that's something I attempt a lot in my writing too. It just occurs to me that probably a whole heck of a lot of groups out there don't want to put forth the effort in making things make sense.

This potentially might only happen in groups like mine, where literally every player has dm'd at some point (and several of us dm regularly). But we're also all neurodiverse, and have a good grounding in solid science, which makes magic 'interesting'. Now, I hadn't closely looked at the rope trick spell in pathfinder's rules before deciding that that was the effect I was using to explain how a rather distressingly competent shady character just strolled out of the kitchen of a private small air-ship (the equivalent of a balloon not unlike the one in the Island at the Top of the World, an old disney movie), while said ship was in flight.

I ended up pointing out that I am sort of merging 3.5 and pathfinder 1 to a degree, and the campaign setting is custom, so yes, I could use the 3.5 version of the spell that allows you to 'pull in the rope' from the inside, to hide it, which the pf1 version doesn't have. Still, it brought up an enormous question by my science-minded players (and I don't mind this at all, only find it is something I doubt many groups really get into). We discussed the spell for a bit after he'd vanished again (as all of them are dms sometime too, I thought I'd point out to the players, who will keep their characters knowledge separate) the spell used to allow him to simply seem to appear where it would otherwise make no sense...but we had to question, how does a spell like that, which anchors to a physical space in a way, work when anchored to a vehicle that is now in motion? It led to some very interesting questions, overall, as well as completely 'outside the box' potential tactics for the spell.

Anyone else have similar experiences, where good, long-time players, will discuss the scientific oddities relating to magic in game? Wanting to come up with practical 'logical' reasons for how something worked?

(Btw, for those curious, yes, my players were very wary to have a completely covered assassin/bounty hunter character step out of a previously unoccupied room... And yes, there was appropriate 'I don't trust this guy' to the fact that his 'introduction' was along the lines of, 'You can relax now. If I was trying to kill you, you would be dead. No, instead, you seem to be a piece of a very interesting puzzle.")

Out of curiosity, pf1 preference, friend? I'm getting ready to start something, and still probably need a 4th, and, honestly, I think that *every one of us* currently agreeing to my game (via fgu) is on the spectrum...we still haven't set up a schedule (as I'm letting one of my players do some very 'oddball' things, and that takes time to set up)...

Honestly, finding a gaming group is very difficult for those of us on the spectrum, which is why I'm really glad that my group has such a strong component of the spectrum. We don't tell you that you have to have fun any specific way, and, indeed, one of my players specifically stated that his aversion to 4th when it came out was that it tried to *tell you that you weren't having fun if you didn't play things a certain way* (at least initially). That, too, is the player who's working out some very odd-ball characters. So, maybe you'd feel better in a truly supportive environment. And I do have a slot open, at that.

(note, for those uncertain: fgu means fantasy grounds unity, which I've got a large number of official mods for to make character creation and the like easier, and I am the only one who actually has to purchase those mods, since I'm hosting on an ultimate account. We also will be using discord for voice, but it's one good way to handle vtt, as we've got two players in michigan, one in australia, and I'm west coast us).

As a neurodiverse dm who is a c-ptsd survivor, I figure maybe I need to poke my snout in here. (yes, you can envision me as a dragon, if you want, as that is one nature that seems to fit.) Firstly, there are some very simple, positive things that can help you to deal with, but the actual changes you need to make will depend heavily on exactly what your personal triggers are, and what your personal strengths and limitations are. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution. Especially not in mental health.

To get you started, however, I'm going to suggest that you answer some questions to yourself. (I'll give some pointers on what the answers might mean, but much of this work is going to be yours by necessity, though I'm more than willing to respond more if asked more in depth). The fist one has to do with what, specifically, is the response that your mind is giving you that makes you want to cancel?

Is it because you're overwhelmed by how society's been falling into an infinite vortex of depravity? If so, maybe the idea would be to suggest that someone else take the helm for a while (my gaming group has pretty much everyone experienced in dm'ing, and, when one person needs to take a break, someone else gets to step up and handle their game, so it works in cycles. But not all groups are that well balanced).

Is the issue, instead, that you feel that there are specifics about the game that you're dm'ing that just aren't working? That could suggest that maybe you need to change the pace or theme, even slightly.

Is the issue health-related, outside issues that just creep in and you haven't had sufficient time/effort to process life so that you can be at your full creative best? That usually signs that you need to slow down the game pacing, or maybe take a short hiatus. Many times our minds and bodies try to tell us things that we don't really understand, but learning to question our own unease helps to solve the issues therein.

Since you're now using roll20, are you not getting *sufficient feedback* from your players, so that you can feel confident that your plans are hitting them in all the right ways? Many people rely upon body language to identify how people are handling things. If you aren't getting that (due to not having a visual of each player as they're going through things), you may feel almost like you're trying to traverse a maze blind. Coming to recognize that, and perhaps have another monitor dedicated to video chat might ease the anxiety there.

I'm not unfamiliar with anxiety, and many times, what it most takes is identifying exactly what is causing it. And, while the list of questions I asked was far from exhaustive, it probably gives you some ideas on where to go to fix the problems you're having.

I'm getting ready to start up a new game, ostensibly pathfinder 1 (though with some 3.5 additions, due to one player preferring that). And, in trying to set it up, especially with my personal issues of aphantasia (meaning that I am unable to imagine or remember visually, which makes maps challenging to build). As I was going through assets for this (will be using FGU for my vtt), I so so many things for pf2 and dnd5e, and know that there are a lot of people who wonder why I refuse to move forward into a 'more modern' game system. And it occurred to me again what specifically I utterly despise about both of the two newest dnd iterations and pathfinder 2 (my memory is blanking of starfinder uses this or not, though it likely does. I avoid it because I can't avoid guns in it effectively, and have an issue with guns philosophically). The fact is, each of the 3 systems I won't play use a modular creation system that forces players to stat up at least semi-optimally due to stats, etc. being directly determined by combination of class/race/background. And therein lies the real problem for me.

Now, as background: I am neurodivergent, agender, and grey ace. I am also disabled for multiple reasons, and a survivor of long-term emotional and mental abuse. This is all important as it reminds me that the world is full of 'non-optimal' heroes. It's also something that causes me to cringe at the decisive pigeon-holing of characters based on how the creation rules work. And that, in turn, brings me back to something a good friend has posted more than once.

There is a meme that resurfaces semi-regularly regarding how people think that they have to be of a quality to sell their work to participate in any art form or sport. It points out that society looks down on 'amateurs' even though the word is based on the idea of doing something because you love to. Our highly competitive society doesn't want people who do things just because they want to. If it's not 'marketable', society deems it worthless. As it deems *tons of people* worthless, since we don't fit in their idea of what we should be.

Now, as both a dm and a player, I love characters that play against type. The quirkier and more 'unexpected' the better. My cleric that went through the entirety of the original rise of the runelords campaign (and we started with those back in the pf1 playtest), she would not qualify as an 'effective character' by many player's standards, despite the fact that she really did hold her own. But, being a Varisian cleric of Calistria, she spent stat points in charisma, dex, and int as well as wis, so that she could make full use of the fact that Calistria's weapon of choice was a whip. When the rules with subdomains came out, I poked our dm, and he allowed me to use lust as a subdomain, and that, itself, caused some of the most utterly hilarious game moments (trust me, nothing gets a dm to stop and reconsider things than when you tell them that you're going to try to 'flirt with the dragon' which meant that she was using the Lust subdomain power, anything to please, on that dragon...and succeeded...also in the same dungeon, she did so against a fighter, who gave her the cloak of displacement she was wearing...all sorts of fun). But just because something isn't optimal doesn't make it ineffective or 'unfun'. And we need to make this clear.

My husband got me into reading a series of books (don't remember the series title, but the first book is titled 'npcs') wherein you have a very unexpected group of characters that are all 'suboptimal', but seem to be able to come out on top mostly through being unexpected. Having a crippled gnome end up a paladin of the god of minions, the half-orc bartender becoming a wizard, the town guardsman becoming a rogue, and, of all things, the mayor's daughter becoming a barbarian...it's very fun, and worth reading (or listening to, as my copies are audiobooks). No, you should not be *forced* by a game system to play an 'optimal build'. There are a whole lot of ways you can be sub-optimal and keep the game going, indeed, going riotously. And that's why I won't play systems that forcibly pigeon-hole your character concepts.

As a parting thought, I tend to use pathfinder 1 or dnd 3.5 stats for helping me understand characters I'm starting to write about for my stories, and the fact is, while those stats give some basis, every character I end up with there has a distinct quirk or multiples of them. You get a former-assassin who ends up a holy knight (yes, that happened in a story, and the character continues to be fun to write about), a woman who, despite a severe withering curse that had been on her for years, and who had no major magic at that time (most of what she had was for getting in and out of places without being noticed) who saved the life of a very powerful mage/warrior twice through thinking around problems from the position of weakness. You don't have to be overpowering, and systems that try to force you into that continue to direct you into destructive thought patterns. They discount the value of the least, and that's something I'm trying to wean people away from. Everyone can be a hero, especially those whom we consider not worth the effort.

Sorry was away from this for so long, but I had other things that took up time for a while. So, back to the problem at hand, and one of the reasons I've actually got a visceral annoyance with Pathfinder 2 specifically (and, in many ways, both of the most recent DND incarnations) is that they have taken a serious step backward on ability scores and their requirements. Back when I first started playing, there weren't really any options, so I'd had to put up with the fact that most classes had ability score requirements to *even play that class* (paladin charisma 17 anyone?)...3rd edition d&d was a real game-changer for me, because it made it clear that there shouldn't be such requirements. That, yes, if your abilities are 'non-standard', you might not handle things quite as well in some cases, but you could still play that class. But, with pathfinder 2 directly tying your ability scores to your class/race/background choices, you end up being unable to really access some of the variety that life has. And, honestly, it's enormously unrealistic to have stats work like that, in addition to annoyingly boring to play.

Fact: I am dyspraxic. What this means is something not well known here in the US (most doctors here really were never instructed on dyspraxia, despite it being more common, according to some studies in other countries than autism spectrum disorder, which it is sometimes co-morbid with). Dyspraxia is a motor learning disability. And it has very wildly different appearances, even within the same family (there are reasons to believe it's at least partially genetic). My particular case manifests in being absolutely hopeless with a console game system's controller, and handwriting that is only barely this side of illegible. On the other hand, I can compose (not merely type, but compose) text on a standard keyboard at speeds in excess of 40 wpm. I can assemble chain mail jewelry with 20 gauge wire and 1/8th inch link, mostly without really looking at it. And, while my crocheting won't ever be very neat, I can untangle a tiny necklace chain, even from tight knots, with nothing more than my fingers. In my case, I imagine that my vision is a large part of what I have difficulty with, because, even when it's mostly behaving (often I end up with doubled vision, vertical), it's almost like my mind is placing my own positioning wrong for the situation. If I orient or navigate with another sense, such as touch, I'm almost guaranteed to be more accurate. But it's an example of how someone with a distinct disability wouldn't make sense having a high dex, for example, but would still be able to function in perhaps a 'rogue-based class'. There are lots of other ways of looking at things, and learning how to do them 'differently'.

Another good observation is that, for all that I'm also aphantastic (can't visualize), I am often the player who, in a group of really good gamers, who sees potential tactical options that would otherwise escape notice. Each player, each character, brings in new ideas, new ways to deal with things, and forcing a player to not be 'sub-par' in society's eyes, is actually crippling our ability to learn how to adapt to difficult or dangerous situations.

And, if you need another amusing example...Concentration has, in some systems, at least, been considered based on con...I can attest to having been riding a 250 cc scooter at 45 miles an hour down a road where I couldn't safely pull off, and riding perhaps 8 miles after noticing a bee under the edge of my visor (which wasn't quite closed). There was no safe place to pull off, nor slow down, and I had to wait until I got to such a place and not wreck the bike or make things worse. I think that was probably wisdom as the governing stat in that case, but it's a good example of not all things fit the way they're initially imagined. But yes, I succeeded on that check, and the bee flew off when my bike slowed for a light, further down the road.

We do, however, need to get away from the idea that everyone has to have 'certain traits' to be valuable in something. Knowing as many autists as I do, I can tell you that an autist, even if not normally someone you would think would have ability scores for certain things, might have that as an 'obsession', and very easily could have relevant knowledge that no one else does. That's just how life works. Now we need to make games do the same.

Now, before I get into the main post about what game designers are failing to see themselves doing, I’m going to point out that I, myself, qualify as disabled, and have for many years. Due to neurodivergence and other issues, I could be considered as operating under at least 4-5 oracle curses *every single day*, as well as a few other significant difficulties. And, to merely survive in our society, I’ve had to learn tactics to work around those limitations. But, by most game-system’s outlook, I would be considered an ‘invalid character’ due to those wildly varied abilities and weaknesses, many of which are ‘situational’.
I’m going to tell you, now, about an incident some 10 years ago or so, wherein, I, living in a subsidized apartment building, was awoken shortly after going to bed by a fire alarm. My building, and the one next to ours, as well as one car in the parking lot, had been victims of arson. Despite my own difficulties, including partial situational mutism, I went into the burning building on 3 separate times to make sure that everyone else got out, while we waited on the fire department, including aiding a mother who had clashed heavily on me for my attempts to keep the fire door closed (which may have saved her and her 3 children’s lives). I got them out, and, myself, physically lifted the stroller with her youngest to get them up the stairs. I coordinated with police and fire workers, and helped to communicate with our many Ethiopian and Somali refugee neighbors who spoke little English (and I don’t speak their language, but at least had some experience as an ESL tutor), in making sure no one was hurt and the facts we did know got relayed.
That’s not exactly saying I’m non-viable as a hero, but rather, that I’d had to learn to work around difficulties, disabilities, because that was necessary for survival. What I’m upset about is the game design tactic that seems to be attempting to utterly erase those of us who have had to overcome huge limitations and imbalance to not only survive, but thrive. And, honestly, to be heroes. The fact is, it’s not your abilities that make you a hero…there are far too many people out there who have all sorts of powerful abilities, but choose not to use them to aid others. Yet, there are an equal number of people, born with limitations of one form or another, who are taught that they *can’t* be a hero, because of those limitations. We need to show them that they can, and that they are just as worthy as the powerful ones. Honestly, we often, because of how we’ve had to adapt to a world that does not think we are viable, have already come up with a multitude of ways to overcome our society’s biases against our validity.
What we need is not a ‘level playing field’, but, rather, a situation where even the least, the weakest and most vulnerable, can contribute. We need acknowledgement that disabled heroes exist, and that we are valid. That means that we need game systems that recognize that even a character with absolutely wild numbers of weaknesses can still contribute to the whole. And, as a disabled writer and gamer, I try to craft those situations, recognizing that someone working from a position of innate weakness can see holes in an enemy’s defense that stronger characters/players won’t see. So, we aren’t a burden, nor something that people don’t want to see. Disabled people, especially disabled children, need to see examples of their disability truly shining, truly proving their worth. It may mean the difference between life and death for them, for us. So, don’t try to level the playing field blindly, but, instead, try to work in situations where a weakness becomes a strength, and where having to adapt is viewed as a useful skill.
Because we deserve a chance to shine, just like ‘normal or exceptional’ people do. We’re all exceptional, just some of us would be considered ‘non-viable characters’ with how game systems work at the moment.

eep, finally found a way to access that, so should get it shipped shortly, now.

I attempted, last week, to redeem a copy of the 2nd edition core rule book that my husband acquired via humble bundle (he gave me all the keys that I redeemed here, since he didn't think to have it listed as a gift via humble). I attempted to redeem the keys, did acquire all of the pdfs, but, when due to odd errors adding in a new payment method for the shipping of the physical book, there is no way of telling if it's going through, needs the payment readded, or what? There is no way I can check on the matter, and I received no notification that the payment was accepted, or it listed as an order on the site. Is there a place I can actually look this up? Or a way to clarify payment methods when changing a few (I'd run into errors due to the site still having a bunch of card from years ago that were no longer valid)?

Tiona Daughtry

not at all surprising. Thankfully, both of the people who dm me semi-regularly are pretty good at adjusting to odd tactics. I try to return the favor when I'm behind the screen. I have learned that tactics just mean approaching problems from a different direction. Only most people have trouble even seeing the other directions.

Alassirana

Let's start out by saying that I don't set out to be a difficult player. I just am someone for whom the 'box' is simply not even a concept. Any problem whatsoever can be approached in myriad different ways, and I'm very fast at adjusting to solve them, usually by coming up with something that makes the DM (even very good ones like the ones I play with) go 'um, I'd never considered this, let me check something'.

Situation the other day was funny. This is a weird hybrid campaign, using a lot of house rules. My character, Xereff, is a variation off of djinn racial class and paladin (cutting some abilities of each to merge them). I'm 7th level, giving me 4 hit die, but a lot of 'specialized abilities', and we were trying to acquire a number of potions of silver dragon control in this dungeon under a time limit. We've got all but one, and that has to be in the vamp lair, accessed by two 2" diameter tunnels, in different areas. we also have several potions of gaseous form. My character is, among other things, telepathic, flies (60' perfect), and can be invisible at will, as well as having darkvision. I also have ranks in move silently (fly silently?) and am pretty good at that...so I often serve as scout (yes, strange place for a paladin, but in this group, it works)

after having another character's familiar 'scout out' the lair, we plug up one of the two holes from the outside, and everyone gathers at the other. I turn invisible, quaff a potion of gaseous form (because I've used my natural one up for the day), while carrying another, then float alone into the lair. I don't need light to see (bonus), and look in both wooden coffins in the room before I accidentally wake one of the sleeping vamps (without becoming visible). I've already figured out that the potion bottle we need has to be in his coffin, so, when he moves to close it and fall back asleep, I telepathically contact him, telling him flat out that there is an enemy in the room with him. The intention is to get him to vacate the coffin so I can get the potion without revealing myself. He starts looking around, but doesn't get further from the coffin, so I make an odd attempt. I grab the coffin, to try to knock him off balance, thus revealing myself (inviaiblity wears off as that is an 'attack')...vamp turns toward me, and I have his coffin more or less in hand, and he'd already been casting a spell to find me. On my turn (before he can do more than look and talk), I quaff my spare potion, turning gasseous with his coffin, and flee out the hole that I know is unplugged (and that my allies are waiting to plug once I'm free).
the vamp I woke gets out before I do (he can move faster, since gaseous form limits my speed), but my allies wait for me to get out before plugging the hole behind me. Battle ensues (one vamp, not two, because of our quick thinking), and the vamp learns the hard way that he can't use dominate well when fighting a party that chiefly contains outsiders and aberrations. He does try to use it, but realizes his mistake quickly. So, yeah, DM's have no idea what to expect from me. And no, lawful alignment doesn't mean that I have to behave in an expected manner, just a 'logical' one, more or less. I just have enough experience to be 'creative' on the fly.

Alassirana (Xereff in Magnus' game).

Perhaps a lot of my viewpoint is that I take what is possibly a 'backwards' approach to character design. I almost never start out with a character concept, and more or less mash pieces together until something jumps out and essentially says 'hi, I'm your character, and I work like this'. I find that this system makes that, in fact, impossible to do. A lot of it is the mechanical balance, that keeps me from even getting any solid impression of what the character is *supposed* to do, much less how they might approach things. I forced myself through one character creation, and almost couldn't do that (despite having spent hours in several different systems rolling up at least 3-4 characters at a time on many occasions over the years just to play with various ideas). I have tried to look at statblocks, but absolutely none of the statblocks I've seen give me any real impression of who they could be. The fact that there are classes I've seen where, once you make a class feat choice at a low level, it absolutely dictates your choices at other succeeding levels, indicates that there really isn't much room to 'adapt'. I use rules more or less to give me a starting point, and there very much is not one here. The way the system seems to be designed, my impression of examining a character concept could be described to those who can actually visualize things (which I cannot, honestly) as a vague outline amid dense fog. The characters are not distinct enough to tell me who they are. And that means I am also incapable of figuring out what they can do, or how to make them come alive. Everyone seems to be focusing on character personality being almost completely 'untied' from stats, and, I can tell you from what I've learned of psychology and need for my writing, that is very much not the case. How we think, what we do, is very much tied in to finding out what we are actually *good* at, and, really, the character I managed to force myself to create? I can't tell what in the world he's supposed to do, and I can't get any kind of feel for what he would actually be good at. He is just that outline if the fog, nothing that tells me *who* he is. For me, I do need a 'starting block', and the way I can see no measurable difference between builds tells me that there is nothing particularly special about any character I could possibly make here. Which means, in fact, that it is impossible for me to play, because I can't invest in a character that doesn't have a distinct 'place'. And, honestly, the feats and skills I've read really, really, don't have enough weight to feel important. They are, in what I've seen, about as important as eye color and hair color (remember, I can't actually visualize, and have no visual imagination). So, maybe the biggest problem is that I can't create a concept first. I imagine I'm not the only one, though.

Stop, take a step back, and try to listen. In a good role playing game, a significant part of the actual role playing, is determining *how* the characters approach a given obstacle. By strongly limiting the character variation, you are, also, in fact, sorely limiting the direction any obstacle can be approached from. Having a reasonably wide differences in what characters can do allows for them to modify their approach in ways that reflect character background, goals, etc. If you do not, in fact, allow characters to go 'off-script', you are essentially 'railroading' them, and that has, in my experience, always been considered a very bad thing (note several rulebooks across editions pointing that out). If you do not allow for creative problem solving through the use of character skills, feats, and a potentially 'non-optimal' ability setup, you are, in fact, forcing the characters to solve the problems one way. That is my objection, and why I consider this game to be so mechanics driven to avoid real storytelling. The stories told by my gaming friends almost always consist of ways they've looked at a situation and 'arranged the battlefield' to give them better odds, changed the situation so that it became solvable, rather than a slog-fest. It is clear from what I've seen in the forums that this game attempts to make it outright *impossible* to adjust the odds for overcoming an obstacle more than just a couple of points on a die roll. As players, we are supposed to look at situations, realize that the odds aren't in our favors, and come up with effective ways, based on our individual characters, to change that around. We get a really good feeling at looking at that ambush, and throwing the monkey wrench into it so that the enemies are at a severe disadvantage instead of likely to demolish us. That is what PF1 was really good at, and 3.5. We had options to change the inherent situation so that it was in our favor. This system refutes that entirely. Having options, having many different ways to approach a situation is what a role playing game really thrives on. It is, in fact, just as integral, or moreso, than the conversations, both between players and between players and npcs. Solving problems is what heroes do, and we're not being allowed the freedom to do that.

perhaps, to me, one of the most integral parts of role playing is that the rules allow, and possibly encourage, solving any given situation 'off-script'. By strictly limiting the range of possible actions and the viability of any option, you make it difficult to impossible to solve challenges in a way that is 'unexpected'. Forcing us to follow a script to succeed at encounters is not 'role play'. It is in a way forbidding us to even consider alternate viewpoints or solutions. There was something I saw in either 3.0/3.5 or Pathfinder 1 that is important. Experience is generally awarded for overcoming a difficulty, rather than merely killing monsters or disarming a trap. By focusing on 'anything that neutralizes the problem' as acceptable, you have all sorts of options available, and it doesn't seem that this edition really considers that a lot of us do, in fact, want to be able to solve things all sorts of different ways.

I realized that maybe an actual example of variant approaches should help. This references one of the games I myself am running, a copy of the original Temple of Elemental Evil updated to PF1 rules. We have the Earth Temple, which has 4 earth elementals who rise up, but don't go hostile unless players enter specific parts of the room or try to steal the items on the altar. Meranthryl, our sorcerer, who is focused extensively on charm and diplomacy, decides that he'd like that chest, contents unseen, but doesn't fancy fighting the elementals, which he has already figured out likely would attack if he just 'tries to take it'. Instead, he recognizes that he'd just picked up a lodestone (literally, he was the party member who actually succeeded in the strength check to do so). He carefully goes as close as he imagines is safe, and attempts to find a language in common with the elementals. This part is entirely outside of the original module's 'script', so, yes, I do have to wing it. One of the elementals rolls high enough to seem to understand at least a bit of abyssal, and, discovering that, Merahnthryl begins negotiations, offering the lodestone, which is an elemental earth magic, in exchange for the chest. He has significant bonuses, which overcome the difficulty in communicating in what amounts to a pidgin dialect, and convinces the elemental to trade. Yes, this is completely *not* the intended scenario for the adventure. But that does not make it wrong, or bad in any way. I reward creativity like that. So do all of the other dms I play with. Finding alternate solutions to a situation is always cause for at least a compliment, if not other rewards. The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible, and characters do not have enough chance for a 'personal niche' to pull something like this off. And these are the sorts of problem solving we do pretty much *Every* game session in our group. Being told that we just don't have the ability to alter a situation sufficiently to have a *good* chance of success is not acceptable, and, for us, roleplay is extensively about each character having enough unique going for them that they can solve situations in vastly different ways than 'originally intended'. And that, in fact, is what I see a distinct dearth of here.

Having characters that are mechanically different on several levels, does, in fact, allow and encourage parties to alter their approach to obstacles to favor a specific combination of skills/talents/etc. With everything being so mechanically equal, it really doesn't seem that this ruleset even considers that your paladin is much more concerned with converting the enemy than killing them. Or that your fighter might have an interest in engineering, and see how he could cause a rock fall that would eliminate the threat the enemy poses. It is, in fact, largely based on what you focus on and how you attune it. Also, no one being really good at anything is completely unenjoyable. And the rules as written seem to enforce this standpoint. It is hard to make the story 'about the characters' if they don't really have any choices in how they handle the situations. If they have to approach just about every encounter the same way, well, a lot of us will simply give up and find something else to do. It's not engaging, and not allowing us to feel ourselves as doing anything worthwhile. And that last is, in fact, important.

Part of my problem is, what I've seen from the rules as they are is they make a lot of options that, for example, my regular gaming groups use, completely impossible. The way the focus is on forcing mechanics, there is a lot less leeway to even approaching a given scenario in different manners. You get an encounter, and don't have enough varied abilities to 'alter the battleground' by having reasonably effective chances to communicate, to convince enemies to change sides, to ambush those who think to ambush you, etc. The way it seems, with the extremely low success rate on almost everything, and no one having a significant ability to manipulate the situation, you're forced to approach almost every single encounter the same way. We adapt our encounters constantly in the older versions, reimaging the situation until we can find a solution that works for us. But, really, with the inherent limitations, and the inability to make your characters distinct, you really can't get away with what, for a lot of us, is a standard amount of creativity. I also, personally, find that forcing characters to be optimal or not have any real chance of success eliminates many of the opportunities to really get into the storytelling part of it...everyone is, in effect, completely average. Differences, major differences, between characters, such as things that make a situation more likely to play out one way over another, are, in fact important. Right now, there is no real incentive, even, for creative problem solving, and much deincentivation to do so. Because no one, really, even stands out as a proper hero anymore.

The difference is whether the focus is on absolute mechanics, having rules for every single situation, or whether the focus is to lay a groundwork with reasonable precedent when someone does something unexpected. What I have seen, so far, is that this particular iteration of the game seems to be intended to strictly limit possible choices in situations, and largely that in response to their demand that PFS GMs follow the modules exactly no matter what group they end up with. What I have seen seems to indicate a 'you can't do that' implication to things that are outside of the rules. I, thankfully, in 3.5 and Pathfinder 1, have dms that recognize that the rules are only guidelines, must be adjusted when the situations call for it, and recognize that that those situations happen very often, in response to characters recognizing potential options that were not initially intended. It does seem, from what I've seen here, that there are a lot of things where you are more or less told you don't have a chance to do something 'unexpected'. That makes it a Roll playing game, rather than a role playing game, which acknowledges that just about anything is possible, whether it's likely or not is another thing. By largely trying to tell characters that you can really only do these specific options, it keeps you from adapting. And that is the difference I'm noting.

From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former. But I would, personally, like your opinion on the matter, because that does, in fact, dictate whether I will follow the matter any further. Do you want to focus on mechanics to the exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class, or do you want to create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players? Making that decision clear will also make it far easier to tell what you need to do to make the game fit your vision. Partially, at least, because it will allow you to focus on players who would be interested in your product, rather than those who have vastly different interests. The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps.

I think I have figured out what the heart of the problem could be defined as. The focus of the game has shifted from 'role play' to 'roll play'. It is more about rules, mechanics, and absolute balance than it is about telling shared stories of outrageous exploits and wild dares. That is exemplified by the lack of distinction between characters of same race/class. I think, in the end, Paizo must make it clear whether they will be a 'role playing game' or a 'roll playing game'. And that, in fact, is what will decide people on whether they will play it or not. I don't play the latter, some people do. That's their choice, but I do have mine, and that is not to settle for just mechanics.

Part of my problem is that I absolutely resent being more or less *forced* to be optimal (also, almost no game I'm in has used rolling in character generation since 2nd edition, for very good reason). I flat out wouldn't play 12-man trials and 4 man group dungeons in the video game I play (ESO) even if my having visual snow did not render me effectively blind in most group combat situations. I really, really can't help but be offended at being told that essentially you can only approach a situation more or less 2-3 ways at most...yeah. I role play in order to be able to, for example, talk to an enemy, discover that they're fighting us because they're starving, and offer food to change their minds. I want to be able to actually do things like remember I have remote viewing as a domain ability and see how the room is set up for what we've already figured out is the boss, so that when we enter the room, clever strategy gives us a total win before the guy gets a chance to react. The DMs, in fact, like us doing those, even if they upset the plots because they show creativity, and let us see things they've never thought of. Being forced to only have 2-3 options at all in a situation, yeah, not a role playing game at all. Not really.

I was brought into a game in Pathfinder 1's playtest. More or less because our group switches out between campaigns/gms, at the last time I've been playing Imara, my human (varisian) cleric of calistria, she was 16th level and just finished runeforge. I thoroughly enjoyed the pathfinder 1 playtest. The game was, very clearly, an enhancement on 3.5. Perhaps more telling is my almost instinctive reaction to this one. Historically, I'm the girl who has often spent 3-4 hours rolling up 7-8 random characters in whatever system happens to be available, for the sheer joy of seeing what I could create. It is very, very telling that I found it almost impossible to finish creating one in this playtest. It flat out cannot even get to actual playing, because I feel entirely personally demeaned by the way the game seems to imply that more than maybe a 2 point variance in stat placement is in fact 'dangerous and unwelcome'. There is really no chance to diversify your characters using the normal character generation rules. And that is very distressing in a game where you're supposed to invest yourself in that character, their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. The fact is, I can tell already that it is actually impossible for me to feel for a character generated in here, because they are absolutely average. They really can't be distinct. I have good reason to believe my entire gaming group will have the same general perception. Yes, I said that it was personally demeaning. It is, in fact, personally demeaning to be told by the game designers that having a distinct, unique character endangers the playability of the game. It says that I am not actually trusted to be able to create a character that both can survive and work in a group effectively if that character is anything other than average. Yeah. Not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. Which, I guess, means that I need to look elsewhere, because I really can't see how they'll fix this problem without scrapping their entire idea, and that's unlikely.

I will point out that the latter of the two options asked for clarification is probably more accurate. I do point out that oftentimes, taking a liability to allow more ability in other areas is in fact a very good idea, and makes a character more 'real'. The fact is, these characters are all so very heavily limited (like the class feats that when you choose one out of maybe three at one level, it flat out dictates your choices at higher levels, and you can't customize the character around it). When you are more or less obsessed with 'absolute numerical balance', it takes away the fact that this is, in fact, supposed to be a game about immersing yourself in another person and understanding them, and working with both their strengths and weaknesses. When all the characters are absolutely equal by the numbers, it's almost guaranteeing that there are really only 2-3 ways of approaching any given situation, and that more or less prevents players and characters from any true freedom of action. Having more variability encourages the creation of new tactics, focused around each group's strengths and weaknesses (and quirks).

part of this problem is that the way the rules are run, and how stat bonuses are derived and forced to be placed in specific spots, you really won't have much of any variety. I can't differentiate my character from anyone else's, in any meaningful way. Nothing is distinct enough to separate them from others. The extent of balancing is such that you can't make enough decisions about the character abilities to actually feel significantly 'you'. I honestly did attempt to create a character in this system, and found myself so stringently limited that I couldn't get any feel of that character being an individual at all. They are mostly a bunch of cardstock fill-ins. And that is inherently unplayable, because there is absolutely nothing to identify with. It is all 'prefab' assembly. You can only put things together a few different ways, really. And that is what I have an aversion to. I thoroughly enjoy playing a character that is distinct, and has interesting limitations. and not all of that can be strictly roleplayed. By taking those limitations, I'm stronger in other areas, which I should be. That's what being an individual is all about, and I am upset because this game is taking away that opportunity for individuality. It's disappointing, because i really don't have any hope that things will fix themselves. Everyone is focused on more or less being 'the same', and that is not fun or rewarding in the slightest.

it might also be worth it to consider actual real world mythology, which is one of the inspirations to the game. Consider, for example, Oedipus, whose name actually means pierced foot, and who was known to have damaged feet from how he'd been exposed. That did not, in any way, keep him from defeating the sphinx in the riddles, or keep him from his destiny of killing his father. Tyrisius, the blind seer, was blind long before the issue with killing fornicating snakes (twice even), that dealt with his gender change. He was also blind long before his heroism in the Trojan War. The fact is, forcing players to be 'average' is a very bad, and in fact, dangerous thing. Average is not good for teaching us much of anything. It's really the province of things like those shooter games, where you neither can nor should really customize your character. I don't play those, wouldn't want to, because I want to be a hero, and, for me, being a hero means that i have to overcome limitations. Which means I have to have limitations. Being average really makes that impossible, which means that I probably will be stopping my purchasing of new role playing products, since it's apparent that just about all of them are moving to this frightening level of 'averageness'. Trying to force me to be 'normal' or 'average' is an outright insult. And needs to be taken that way. Besides, that kind of character generation almost guarantees cookie-cutter characters, and that's never been fun.

I realized, while I was doing something else, that perhaps I'm not clear on something important to gaming in general. Honestly, I loved the fact that in the older pathfinder, diversity was celebrated, not only in racial and sexual diversity, but in disabilities. The drawbacks system was beautiful and useful. One thing I hate, though, is when people try to make everything more or less 'average'. Where character creation is an assembly line of prefab pieces. Where most characters really aren't all that different from each other in nature. I've never been able to be 'average' in real life, and I find it offensive to be told that I more or less have to be in role playing. And, honestly, what I view the 'goal' of role playing games is to get the sense that you've been dealt a really bad hand, yet you still find some way to overcome the challenge, probably not the way the dm imagined it, but because you came up with something totally off the wall that worked, no matter how bad the odds were. I also write stories, and one of my most riveting characters in those stories, in my opinion, is Vashk'al'Rhi'n. As a part of his 'backstory', when he was five, living among what amounted to a rebellion group against his people's leader, he'd been killed, reanimated as a corpsefolk, and turned against the Rhi'na'n, those he would consider 'his people', before his father and allies managed to overcome the leader, the Mayisna, and a debt owed by another person in the group to what amount to the fey ended up bringing Vashk back to life. The fact was, where he was moved to after that, everyone knew he'd been dead, and undead. The vast majority of the people in town hated and feared him. Which made it very powerful when he could prove himself merciful against his tormentors, when he ended up making it his life's work to protect people who he considers victims of society. He did this not because he was really capable, but because he could overcome his own weaknesses. And that, in my eyes, is what the game's about, proving ourselves to be more than our weaknesses. But when a game really doesn't give you much of a chance to have those weaknesses, it really steals away from the victories you have. So, yeah, I really don't enjoy this kind of 'balanced' game system. It's really scary to think that I hardly was able to force myself through the character creation process with this playtest one time. Much of my life I've spent hours creating random characters for fun. This system takes away that fun. I really can't say it any other way. It forces me to be 'average'.

Now let me say, I've played lots of variations off of D&d, and really got into the older pathfinder. However, I've noticed a strong bias in recent years, across the board, and definitely affecting this playtest version, toward 'absolute balance', and I'm going to illustrate why that's a problem. Perhaps as background, I should point out that I personally have been dealing with a host of mental and physical difficulties all my life, and one of the things I have always loved about rpgs is that you can take a character with pretty significant drawbacks, and really make them shine, with a little work. The problem I see right now is that this game and others are trying to basically demand that all player characters be on essentially the same level playing field. It does not really allow for what I consider 'exceptional' characters, because no one is really 'unbalanced' enough to show that even characters with significant drawbacks are valuable in the right situation. I resent the ableist viewpoint that you shouldn't go to 'extremes' with a character. It's a personal shot against people like me who have limitations but find ways to adapt to them. It is, therefore, a significant disappointment that the game industry in general is making it very difficult, if not impossible, to play characters that could be very fun to play, but require more delicate 'work' to put in. What I've seen of this makes it really, really hard to get into the game, because it's all a participation medal situation, rather than a challenge to be overcome with strategy and teamwork. It's too easy, too fair. And that's largely where it's going to lose players like my group. Because it simply isn't enough of a challenge to be fun. Sorry. I simply can't enjoy or support limiting players from expressing their uniqueness with characters that have such extremes.

After Sparky left the bugbear leader in shreds, and one of the other bugbears with him, hit by a coruscating bolt of black energy, the companions hardly had to threaten the remaining bugbears to stay put, and stay reasonable. Of course, Meranthryl's new 'ally' was still largely a gibbering mess of both shock and lack of mental fortitude (Why is it that frightened enemies tend to fall under charms so easily?). Looking over the chamber that they'd entered, and posting a gnoll to guard each of the other two entrances, Venisa went through pockets and poked around the ill-furnished chamber. She collected various coinage, including a surprise, as the leader of the bugbears had actual platinum on him, not much, but certainly worth something. There were two other things of interest, though. One was a belt, that, upon close examination, seemed to be able to cure wounds on occasion. The other, though, was far more interesting. Venisa didn't want to touch it initially, as it was an amethyst prism that had been knocked free from an amulet worn by a man in tattered grey half-robe and trousers, lying dead in one corner. It detected as magical, so she was cautious, though she detected no trap from it. With a little work between Meranthryl and Majet, they determined that it seemed to be the focus of a fairly powerful spell, and, furthermore, that the spell was unusual. It was a divination intended to communicate with other planes of existence. What made it very odd was the fact that it was the focus of that spell from another plane. Someone from a place variously named the Outlands or Concordant Opposition was trying to bespeak someone in the mortal realm.
More interested in the fact that it was a magical gemstone than anything else, Sir Lee reached out and picked it up, trusting that his dwarven affinity for avoiding magical troubles would serve him. Almost instantly, his eyes shifted to a place beyond him, and what he sensed, no one else did.
Before Sir Lee was a woman of indeterminate age, a little short for a human, dressed in dark grey half-robe and trousers, with her black hair pulled up to be held in place by a pair of diamond rods. She seemed to be Baklunish in origin, and possessed a mien that was both serene and troubled. Speaking to him, she commanded him to seek to find out where her servant was trapped. She gave a name, one that the dwarf didn't recognize off the top of his head, a Zuoken, and merely that he was trapped somewhere, and that his followers might be able to help him find the other. Then, strange as it seemed, she lifted her legs, moving into a lotus position floating in midair, before what seemed to be a giant lotus blossom appeared and closed up around her. As she vanished, the dwarven bard managed to shake his head and clear his mind.
A little consultation with the others around him revealed who the woman had to be, a reasonably powerful goddess, one whose nature was cloaked in shadows, Xan Yae, Mistress of Perfection, and also a goddess who worked very subtly. No one knew what was going on with regard to her missing servant, Zuoken, though there was an odd comment, almost unnoticed out in the hallway beyond.
Tasha, who had thus far managed to be almost disturbingly unnoticeable, murmured something that made no sense. "I had no idea that he was still there." She looked embarrassed and said no more, but what she'd said was enough.

(Note, I decided to draw my intrigue variant off of the Temple of Elemental Evil--using pathfinder rules-- to include many other sub-plots throughout the Flanaess. I also found that it was far more amusing to see what the party did when encountering a spell cast in a very different manner, hence a contact other plane spell cast by a deity to communicate with a mortal).

A little over a week ago, my gaming group (with a friend dm'ing) actually got around to asking for the logic of Calistria having the knowledge domain. It took me a moment to think about it, since I'd never considered it, even though I'm playing the party cleric (a Calistrian, of course, and started back in pathfinder beta), before I could come up with an answer, and I'm sure that others could expound on the idea too.

My rationale for Calistria offering the Knowledge Domain is rather subtle, and actually does not necessarily feed through to the actual abilities of the knowledge domain completely. As she is the goddess of lust and revenge, I stopped to think about what specific uses she would have for a lot of these spells/powers, and a lot of them are not necessarily focused on adventuring clerics in this case. First off, the knowledge domain 1st level power is one that probably really doesn't see much use in combat, since the cleric usually doesn't want to get close enough to merely touch an opponent in combat. However, out of combat, the touch with its knowledge check are actually very applicable to someone focused on lust, as the knowledge gained therein could, by dm ruling, be themed to find out about sexual preferences and other sexually focused knowledge. As for revenge? That's another one where one of the abilities works really well toward her interests. Remote viewing, which you gain fairly early, allows you to peer through walls/locked doors to see things that could theoretically be used for blackmail, which offers some very interesting role playing for revenge. Anyone else have specific religious reasons why she would offer that domain?

Meranthryl is a he, but I should try to update the information here. The title of this post came from a joke that another player made after Meranthryl pulled off his extreme success. But thank you, I thought this was quite fun.

I have to recount something that was one of the most amusing and almost unbelievable things I've ever seen happen in a game, though, from my position as a dm, I will admit to allowing the players to try just about anything. If they can describe it well, it has a better chance of success, and the dice are the final arbiter.

The campaign is a pathfinder update of the Original Temple of Elemental Evil. The party has just discovered the Earth Temple on the dungeon level 1. They realized that the elementals will neither attack them, nor pursue them, so long as they don't get within 10' of the pyramid in the center of the room. At the south end of the pyramid, between 2 of the earth elementals, is a bronze coffer, closed.

The party explores both small 'cubby' rooms at the south end of the temple, and, for reasons of chaos, or fate (Istus is interested in the sorcerer Meranthryl for some reason, it seems), our tiefling sorcerer Mertanthryl is the only player character who seems to be able to move the Stone of Weight that they find in one of these rooms. (he rolled a 22 on his strength check to carry it)...

Meranthryl is really curious about the coffer, but doesn't want to fight the elementals. So, between pantamime and attempting in 3 languages, he tries to convince the nearest earth elemental to trade him the coffer and its contents for the stone of weight he has. On his third attempt, the dice get in his favor, and it seems that the elemental can understand just enough draconic to make sense of what he's saying. I have him roll an opposed diplomacy check against the elemental's sense motive, and Meranthryl rolls more than twice what would beat the elemental (no situational bonuses involved). So, somehow, the sorcerer not only managed to communicate with this elemental, but struck a bargain with it.

The elemental picks up the coffer on the other side of it, puts it on the other side of him (the side Meranthryl is on), then holds out his hands. Meranthryl drops the stone of weight gently into the elemental's hands, and the elemental largely goes back to just standing there. Meranthryl drags the coffer back to the rest of the party, and I decided I had to award full xp for the encounter, as the party, while not 'defeating' the elementals, managed to neutralize the encounter, and acquired something of value from it.

We seem to have a diplomancer in our midst. But, this gives me ideas for plots of my own...*evil grin*

(note: at the time of the encounter, the party was all 4th level), so this was a really good set of rolls).

A question came up, and I have decided how I will apply it in my game, but it's something that made me surprised that a long time, common-sense player seemed not to have considered, and so I thought I'd bring it up here. It states, in the core rules, that a dwarf's speed is *never* reduced for encumbrance. I have, for my personal understanding, limited that in one specific way. If a character is 'holding' more weight than they can move via push/pull/drag weight limits, their speed is effectively 0. A dwarf's inability to have their speed lessened is actually, in my games, limited by the total amount of weight that they can push/pull/drag. If they can't move something based on their strength score, they cannot have full movement, or even any movement while trying to carry that item. Does anyone else agree with it? Should there be weight limits, based on strength score, as to the maximum amount even a dwarf can move?

Reading the rules for Basic Telekinesis gave me a truly evil idea that I might be able to use at some time that I would like adjudication suggestions before hand. The ability allows you to create a basket/bowl of aethyr (essentially force) to dip into liquids and carry them. If an enemy who doesn't clearly see me, is standing near a pool of acid or other such substance, and I use the basic telekinesis to create such a bowl, dip it in, then use sleight of hand to move that bowl (preferably unseen) to a point over the enemy, can I then make the bowl wink out of existence, and would it be an attack roll or a saving throw for it (i'm inclined to think saving throw--probably reflex with a dc equal to my sleight of hand)?

Alassirana

An odd question came up (mostly because of a story I was writing that I'd designed the main character off of the spiritualist class). What happens if the phantom is subject to effects like Trap the Soul, or anything that 'eats the soul' of a creature (I know I've seen more than a handful of those sorts of effects in various games over the years). Technically, the phantom could become effected by trap the soul, as it is a creature. But what effect would that have on it's spiritualist? Would it interfere with spellcasting or other abilities?

A question has come up regarding the use of a crystal ball. The crystal ball states that it has the effects of a scry spell, but does not mention whether the crystal ball is a command word action, a spell-trigger, or if it takes the time that the actual spell in question would take (1 hour). I am inclined to consider that it uses an command word activation, but would like a proper answer there.

Anyone have a good ruling on that?