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'.

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.")

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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?

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

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?