eric warren's page

...Death or Glory!

In actuality most these feats are bad because of how you stress the game .. if your game is just as focused on challenges based on environment and non-combat situations they become more relevant .. and arguably the game more interesting. It does require more work though to include things like acrobatics and run checks .. considering fatigue etc

A little off topic but I just wanted to post I normally won't read forums much because they are filled with immature idiots and banal posts. However I would read and post here even if I wasn't gaming much. Intelligent discussions from varied viewpoints. Much more stimulating than most of the internet. Maybe all that analytical and creative thinking from gaming has paid off.... The stuff posted here is often more intelligible than what the average politician is seen spouting on tv.

eric warren wrote:

The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?

In Canada, people who are capable of working but refuse to are called conservative party members.

Incorrect. The position was not that people who are making effort would starve. The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?

If I cried no fair because I didn't want to earn for myself "crying" is exactly what i would be doing. A kick in the ass is exactly what i would deserve .. not a hand out. Let's not confuse the hard worker who is out of work with the social leech that tries and ducks work at the expense of others. Nor confuse them with the incapable (of which many fraudulently claim to be). Personally I know many people who collect disabillity and work under the table or could hold some job.

What you call empathy is dangerous because it is not connected to logic. Heart without Head is a problem and vice versa. Very often a situation is worsened by treating someones feelings rather than the problem.

Ex. The parent that grounds their child for not studying/failing a class and then sees how upset the child is and does not enforce the grounding. What does this lead to? (Hint: The type of person you want to feed for free)

Your example of exploitive situations is valid but not applicable to this thread. No one here is justifying exploitation. In fact its exploitation of others that people are arguing against. Neither is anyone endorsing inhumane working conditions. Exemplyfying one social injustice does not make another invalid (lazy noncontributors vs exploitation) .. it simply means thy both need to be corrected.

Functionally, if you argued "I will be a socially lazy noncontributor until exploitation of me ceases" I could see some logic. Whole other thread though...

bugleyman wrote:

Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...

They don't. It's just a reactionary response caused by someone's socio-political outlook painting them into a corner. Devoid of application to reality. If a person espousing that viewpoint found themselves in that position they'd be the first to cry "no fair". It's just a lack of empathy and ignorance of the conditions of the less-fortunate in our (or any) society. The fact is that there *are* people who starve to death, not due to laziness, but due to an exploitative economic situation that reduces someone's worth to society to the market value of their labor.

To those who do claim to support the "work or starve" viewpoint, I say come out here to Thailand. Go to Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. Here it truly is "work or starve" for many, and I would imagine the "work" to be a bit more than most Americans could handle. Unemployment insurance? LOL.

Zo

The unemployment example was provided to demonstrate human nature and the inclination for it to be abused ... not to suggest collecting unemployment is wrong or even that taking advantage of the system is wrong. By all means if you have been working and are currently out of work I think you are entitled to collect.

In fact based on the corruption in government it may even make sense to collect as much as possible regardless of ones situation ... but that's another thread.

jreyst wrote:

I know personally that if I were unemployed tomorrow I would be at the unemployment office first thing in the morning, or as quickly after becoming unemployed as possible. I have a responsibility to my family to ensure adequate food and shelter and I have many financial responsibilities I must ensure are met. I have no problem taking advantage (using the term loosely) of a system I have spent over 20 years paying into in order to ensure my family does not suffer. I have no idea how long I will be unemployed and waiting until the last minute, for me, would be irresponsible. If I were wealthy or had adequate savings to cover several months of not working then I might not go apply right away, but I would certainly otherwise.

+1. Trust me, for me at least. being out of a job for the last four and a half monthes has been the worst hell I can imagine. It has not been a vacation.

Precisely,

If someone isn't willing to make the effort to provide for themselves ... why should I or anyone else be forced to provide for them?

The only argument would be out of "humaneness". Yet this argument isn't true. It's an emotional appeal that sounds right. However, by providing for someone who is too lazy to provide for themselves all you do is reinforce lazy behavior. It in fact is hurting them by teaching reliance vs self-reliance. It instills and conditions them to a "welfare mentality" ... a sense of entitlement which is a net negative on society.

As an example: Do you know anyone on unemployment right now? How hard do they work to find a job when they have 6 months left on their unemployment? What did extending unemployment do for these people? Did it provide them with a few more months of hitting the streets for a job or a few more months of Playstation/ Oprah/ Travel/ etc? For every one person who got back to work as fast as possible I bet I can find 3 or more that use it as an extended vacation. Who pays for this when its a free vacation?

I have empathy for the person who tries regardless of success, I despise someone who thinks I should work for them while they can but won't.

What if the mount moves on an earlier initiative and attacks...

"Ex: Paladin on horse travels horses full move .. Paladin dismounts and takes his move/ turn."

Does the paladin blink out of existence while the horse is moving or does he wait till the end of the movement. Shouldn't that waiting be reflected in the turn sequence?

Two entities working together still consume time in their shared goal. They share the time consumed.

s

If a paladin on his mount moves (mount moves), can the paladin then dismount and get his move?

Ex: Paladin on horse travels horses full move .. Paladin dismounts and takes his move/ turn.

It seems as 2 seperate entities they should both be entitled to a move and action.

Likewise, could the paladin's mount charge and attack as its action .. and then the Paladin on its back full attack (since the paladin technically did not use a move)?

I suggest that gold, silver and other "valuables" only hold value in the most developed areas. Areas where people can afford to value jewelry and aesthetics. Certainly the Valerian Isles would have a strong gold backed currency used internally. There is no common currency to the continent, though there may be regional currencies in the 1 or 2 largest "cities". Most areas are still barter based. Currencies would be useless in other areas or have exchange values in yet others. This makes a cool dynamic where characters may say ... value copper more than gold depending on the currency of a region or prefer simply to carry trade goods to others. (I hear you can get a good deal for colored beads)

eric warren wrote:

1. One continent with some islands proximal to it. Lost at sea would be one or two other close islands - "Valatian Isles" that actually were emerging from primitive status at the time of the cataclysm. They mostly avoided the fallout and ironically... are now the most advanced civilizations in existence. If an empire is to arise it will likely start from this oceanic civilization. Magics and technology lost to the new world may still be found here. (I liken this place to Moorcock's Melnibone in its isolationism if not content) These are not traders. They are guardians of the old secrets and their personal power. Mainlanders have learned to run on the rare occasion their war or slave ships have been spotted. It is mostly due to this naval presence that ocean-side cities have not sprung up on the mainland.

4. Yes ... One branch of such are the demon-touched. When the demonic hordes at the time of the cataclysm was destroyed, their essences fell like fallout over the land. At its most concentrated point the taint affected the geography creating the Islands of Unmaking. Those creatures in this region where mutated into chaos beasts/hybrids. Further out where the taint was less, Tieflings became common enough to be a race unto their own. Tiefling civilizations revere their demonic heritage leading to a society with a high prevalence of evil and chaos. It is rumored tiefling leaders seek to gain power by reconnecting with the lost plane of their ancestors. Demonic artifacts are considered holy items to all tieflings, even those not of evil and chaotic nature.

7) I submit that the world lacks much trade. It is such a wild place in most areas that lack of roads, unsafe seas, and the general need for groups to focus on their regional safety make trade near impossible. It leads to a high amount of barter and ripe opportunity to those brave and strong enough to travel between regions to profit from personal trade. Caravans would not be wagon loads. It would be 4 or 5

...

1. One continent with some islands proximal to it. Lost at sea would be one or two other close islands - "Valatian Isles" that actually were emerging from primitive status at the time of the cataclysm. They mostly avoided the fallout and ironically... are now the most advanced civilizations in existence. If an empire is to arise it will likely start from this oceanic civilization. Magics and technology lost to the new world may still be found here. (I liken this place to Moorcock's Melnibone in its isolationism if not content) These are not traders. They are guardians of the old secrets and their personal power. Mainlanders have learned to run on the rare occasion their war or slave ships have been spotted. It is mostly due to this naval presence that ocean-side cities have not sprung up on the mainland.

4. Yes ... One branch of such are the demon-touched. When the demonic hordes at the time of the cataclysm was destroyed, their essences fell like fallout over the land. At its most concentrated point the taint affected the geography creating the Islands of Unmaking. Those creatures in this region where mutated into chaos beasts/hybrids. Further out where the taint was less, Tieflings became common enough to be a race unto their own. Tiefling civilizations revere their demonic heritage leading to a society with a high prevalence of evil and chaos. It is rumored tiefling leaders seek to gain power by reconnecting with the lost plane of their ancestors. Demonic artifacts are considered holy items to all tieflings, even those not of evil and chaotic nature.

7) I submit that the world lacks much trade. It is such a wild place in most areas that lack of roads, unsafe seas, and the general need for groups to focus on their regional safety make trade near impossible. It leads to a high amount of barter and ripe opportunity to those brave and strong enough to travel between regions to profit from personal trade. Caravans would not be wagon loads. It would be 4 or 5 strong adventurers who can make it. Perhaps a few colonies have grown strong enough for some small proximal trade routes... but for the most part cities are highly isolated. Inter-city roads generally don't exist and The surrounding lands are just too chaotic and dangerous for regular commuting. Hence small merchant groups do exist, but they trade in small cargoes and employ/made up of highly skilled adventurers that deal with elite clientele.

1) How many continents are on this world?
2) How many months are in a year, and how many days are in the week?
3) What would you suggest as the names of the months and days of the week?
4) Are there any Races and Monsters unique to this world?
5) Are there any spells that are new and unique to this world?
6) Are there any new base classes or prestige classes that are new and unique to this world?
7) Are there any guilds, organizations, and affiliations from the New World that you want to submit?
8) Are there any New Gods that you want to submit?
9) Are there any new magical items and artifacts that you want to submit?
10) Are there any nations, city-states, and geographic regions that you want to submit?

There it is. Instead of 10 items to vote on, there are 10 questions to answer. You don’t have to answer all 10 questions. Answer the ones you want. I also have ideas that I want to submit, but I want them voted on and commented on just like the others. Yes, you can still vote. If you don’t want to answer a question, just vote on some of the other submissions. This has worked out better than I imagined. It totally changed what I had...

2 very few humans alive from original cataclysm.

The Isles of Unmaking - Located at the nexus point where the demons poured through a rift into this plane is a mass of land and sea that is imbued with the chaos from the abyssal plane and the demon's residual essences. The geography here continually shifts and alters so that often there are dozens of islands, less commonly island chains and on rare occasion one solid peninsula of land. This region is home to Kryjank the god of chaos. Only followers of the chaos lord can hope to navigate through his lands without wandering lost and all must be prepared for the absurdity of climates and maddening formlessness of some of the areas more twisted creatures. It is rumored no cities or permanent structures exist here.

In Round 2 the majority of the voters wanted 9+ moons, and no moons (but with a ring of debris from the destroyed Old World) so they both were included. In this third Round, I have come up with a new voting decision, and a request for another type of submission (I loved all of the New Gods you sent in).

How many years have passed since the Death and Rebirth of the World?

#1: 0-100
#2: 101-200
#3: 201-300
#4: 301-400
#5: 401-500
#6: 501-600
#7: 601-700
#8: 701-800
#9: 801-900
#10: 901-1000 or more...

Also, for this round I would like submissions of places. It could be village, city, nation, or country...whatever you want. Here is an example:

Giantskull- shorty after the Remaking, the recreated mortals (all naked by the way) struggled to survive. Many of them gathered by the skull of a dead giant. In time, a town grew around the Giantskull, and that is what they decided to call it.

Today it is a thriving city, and it is run effectively by a mayor and town council. All non-evil Races are welcome there, and a stern sheriff keeps the peace. HOWEVER, the evil spirit of the dead giant is still attached to his skull, and he has been reaching out to other people in the town who are hiding their dark desires.

Okay, there you have it. Please vote and please send in some places...and if you want to send in some more New Gods, go ahead and do that too...:D

For Lycanthropes you already have a suggested god above... have that god associate with one of the moons ... and let that moon determine the lycanthropes cycle. Perhaps it is the only truly "natual" moon. In existence before the cataclysm. The others being "false" moons would be shunned by the followers of said god...

My 'official' vote is going to be purely to make it a ring world - the debris of the destroyed planet circling about, some of it in tiny chunks and some of it large enough to adventure on, as put forth by others. I suppose that could count as both 'none' in the conventional moon sense and '9+' in the 'wow that's a lot of satellites' sense. Zebulon, if the 9+ moon option wins, and I write it as possibly the debris of the destroyed planet circling the new world, then how would you handle having months, full moons for lycantropes, and all of the stuff that a normal moon would handle?

I agree with Lord Fyre 10 moons and they are fragments from the destroyed planet or the dead bodies of dead gods etc. Makes for excellent dynamics when the PCs are high enough level to travel to the moons.... and a nice twist

god of entropy, chaos, anarchy and the new disorder

Kryjank .. Fought for the side of darkness. Originally a blackguard serving his evil masters by leading an army of fell creatures in the service of a dark king. Kryjank hoped through victory to elevate his status amongst the elder evils of darkness. His victories were legendary and success close at hand .. when his soldiers began breaking rank. The onslaught of demons that fought beside his troops began attacking both friend and foe. More and more of them poured forth through the dimensional rift with such voracious an appetite and undeniable thirst for blood they slaughtered both allies and enemies alike tipping the final scale towards neither good nor evil...but ultimately towards chaos and world anhialation. Kryjank watched in despair as his years of planning and servitude went to naught in the end. At the end he did not even fight to save his own life...

His legend is what caused a pocket of evil survivors to resurrect him. Believing that he would be able to lead them and build a new army. But the man they resurrected no longer resembled their fallen hero in spirit or aspiration. The pointlessness of order and duty was clear now to Kryjank. This new world was just as it should be. In the end ... only chaos wins. He and his followers would not build great cities. They would thrive by ruining them and any that aspire to create them. His followers would be like the demons from the abyss and ultimate power would be his by allowing none to grow stronger or more organized.

The party meets in a tavern where the bartender tells them of a convenient dungeon just outside of town ... or to purge his cellar of vermin....

To start this thread i am using a post (or at least part of a post) from Set. The Idea of this thread is to submit your own story hook ideas and or expound on others already submitted.

Remembering as well that we are all individuals, so lets keep it civil.

The origional post is as follows;

Set wrote:

It would be interesting to see a scary, scary group of ascetic fanatics who are dedicated to the eradication of fiends (maybe daemons in particular), by gathering up volunteers who are willing to dedicate their lives to containing the evil outsiders. Not 'containing their threat,' but actually, physically *containing* them. The volunteers bodies are tattooed and enscribed with binding sigils and glyphs and they are assigned to special cells, within summoning circles. The leaders of the sect call up daemons (devils, demons, whatever) and bind them to possess the volunteers. Once inside, the fiend finds that the magical sigils prevent it from escaping, and the volunteers body is restrained in such a way that the demon can't just 'suicide' it's way to freedom (and, even then, the sigils remain potent, and the demon would just be trapped in the corpse!).

For the lifetime of each mortal volunteer kept within the cells, ranting and shrieking with the rage of a trapped fiend, one immortal unkillable creature of irredeemable evil is removed from the universe, unable to work it's wickedness. The Damned...

Or what if the cult evil and thought they were doing good? What if they KIDNAPPED others to be these vessels?

Balance issues are troubling but can often be corrected in game.

If you find your melee types are underpowered in older additions, going with a higher magic world can alleviate this. The more magical items to be had the less exclusively powerfull the casters become. The downside is your classes become somewhat homogenous. (unless you simply incorporate more melee magic items than general). A good excuse could be that few wizards existed in years past and they were employed by nobles to craft weapons for their soldiers... hence lots more melee magic items in the world by proportion....

Alternately if you prefer a low magic world as I do, nerf spells as part of the campaign world's overall effect on magic (call it a weak weave or something), insert low magic areas or no magic zones if you prefer. Now sometimes your casters are still uber... other times those melee types become more vital.. let the strategy, interplay and cooperative tactics ensue.

Remember that the rules are the default base to which your world refers in the absence of your rulings as a DM. Just be sure in the order of fairness to pre-inform your players of your worlds rules (unless its a surprise element of the plot and your characters can handle that). Errata inserted mid campaign can disturb the players that get nerfed so do your best to anticipate problems before they happen, but if it is still necessary consider offering the nerfed characters something else less disbalancing to placate them.

Blah blah blah, generic rip on 4e, blah blah blah.

Because of the power inbalance very few groups play beyond level 10 or 11. Balance allows hi-level play fun for the people who don't want to play a magic using class.

Power to the swordsman.

Your limited spell capability at low levels requires a defensive style of play. Make sure you have a range weapon you are proficient with (bow) for most battles and save you spells for important encounters. Make sure you have a few tank types in your party to hide behind.

From a role-play perspective consider using your intelligence to convince the tanks how vital you are or to sooth their egos so they put up with you until you are more useful....

We are starting up a new Pathfinder campaign and I believe I have decided to play a Wizard. I understand they are quite effective at least later in life.

What advice can you offer that would help me make him "effective" during his early career.

Originally I was considering Evocation because really who does not like to blow things up.

I did read another thread that mentions Conjuration as being quite fun and powerful as well.

So - whats the game plan to make me uber-wiz.

Max INT? What secondary stat? Dex for AC or Con for HP?

If I play an elf I can wield a sword and bow - should I be swinging/shooting stuff? Maybe with that high dex...

Any familiar worth taking or are the bonded items the obvious way to go?

Core rules are allowed. Anything outside that requires DM approval before use. Done.

Hail adventurers! Once again I've taken up my sword and begun DMing a campaign! Unfortunately, three sessions in, our resident Monk has become overpowered and nothing I throw at him (at his level) seems to do any damage!

I (as the care-free and absent-minded DM) let the players choose anything from any D&D book to create their character. A terrible mistake... The monk has dipped into forbidden powers and now runs around the world with an incredible 28AC, an aura called 'Vow of Peace' (making the monsters who fail a Will save of 10...'calm'), and his skin as hard as mithril (weapons must succeed a Fortitude save (can't remember what the save was) or shatter and become useless). He literally jumped from lv2 to lv5, leaving the other players 3 levels behind, and now the challenge rating for everyone has changed to about 3-4. What should I do to even the playing field?!

Actually not so sure .. depending on levels of course ... I actually play-tested our 3.0 10th level sorcerer vs our 10th level fighter standing toe to toe ..GO! Sorcerer won the majority of the time. 3.5 may have changed this but it's still silly disbalanced.

houstonderek wrote:

Again, I assumed we were talking about a fighter and wizard dropped into an arena, both rounding a corner (a la the 1e DMG example), or maybe getting into a fight in a bar or something, not a wizard scrying and prepping.

I see. Then I agree, although even the 3.5 wizard doesn't have much of a chance when caught unprepared in a bar. I was still discussing this:

hogarth wrote:

I'll tell you what -- I'm willing to play out a battle, high-level AD&D fighter (with his 1st- and 2nd-level followers) vs. magic-user (with Enchant an Item, Contingency, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Polymorph Other and Polymorph Any Object) any time. Sound fair? :-)

houstonderek wrote:

Yep, and there are just as many tedious ways for the fighter to win as well in 1e.

I missed the part where you started to agree with me. Never mind. :-)

I wasn't supporting the disbalance of 3.5. Just suggesting that Wizards are weaker at lower levels than the other classes and stronger at higher levels... its the trade-off. And its OK ... just not to 3.5 proportions.

eric warren wrote:

It sounds like a low level campaign you have going.... Consider that low levels are kinda like investing for a wizard... paying dues for all the nastiness they are at later levels.

Complete and total disagreement -- because you've got to flip it around and look at the other side of things as well.

Starting weak, and working towards becoming powerful, is a fun model for everyone. That's why you start at 1st level. EVERYONE should experience this feeling as they gain levels, not just certain classes.

Starting OK, and working towards being totally outclassed, isn't fun for anyone. That's what fighters do in 3.5, though: they start out essential bodyguards, and later on end up being glorified caddies. Who wants to have that type of career progression to look forward to? Why rig the game so that certain players are anxious for the party to NOT gain levels? That makes no sense to me.

lol I hear that ... D&D for MTV

It's all kid-glove these days. Reserrection on demand, healing spells each level, hit points so high you would think they were talking about the US's debt. These young folk don't know how good they got it!

OK ... here is part of the problem... small party. Small party means you have to be extra careful. It also means a wizard is going to have it rougher for sure. In a party that size 2 melee types and a cleric or rogue would be more optimal. Maybe let a PC trade up his character for a wizard at higher levels.

... unless you like a challenge and your group plays well as a team. 3 guys means the marching order protects the wizard in halls and someone investigates rooms while the other 2 cover from the narrow hall... or similar tactics. It requires ALWAYS being conscious of where the wizard is when adventuring and avoiding some areas altogether that offer poor tactical terrain.

wraithstrike wrote:

Why was the wizard in melee? I know everyone has their own play style but going from a d4 to a d6 is not an invitation to sit in the front row.

Small area, numerous opponents. even with only 3 players wasn't a whole lot of area for him to go even if he'd not wanted to be in melee. Without the changes to concentration he'd have been effective for those 5 rounds doing damage while the fighter got the bad guys off his back. as it was he sat there TAKING damage and having to have the cleric heal him 3 times until he finally managed to get his spell off. If i hadn't let him at least retain his spells he would have been hosed.

It sounds like a low level campaign you have going.... Consider that low levels are kinda like investing for a wizard... paying dues for all the nastiness they are at later levels. Playing a low level wizard requires a bit of humility and sucking up or manipulating those big dumb fighters into buying you the time you need. If you dont have an investment mentality a wizard at low levels is prolly not a good choice. Maybe start him at a higher level if DM allows. Or maybe try 4th edition... I play it once a week and find it fun in a more casual kinda game.

and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.

I prefer wizards over any other class. I like balanced games that make sense too. I expect my wizard may not survive low levels and the challenge. I know that the pay out is there if I make it. I'm ok with rules that balance the game and keep it realistic.

. but because its a caster nerf everyone is okay with it.

This is okay with me, people are inclined to have their opinions. And its good to know that next time I have a question or seeking advice about caster problems to not come here unless I'm seeking a nerf.

Wasted action? ...You mean like sitting on your shield while the caster nukes an army of 15? Teleports the party away? Communes with planar beings? ....

I'm not agreeing with your arguments about fighters being unable to protect wizards... Fighters in front.. wizard in middle ... trailing cleric.

Will on occasion a creature get near the wizard? ...sure maybe greater teleport with a demon or something... but by that level the wizard is a huge threat loaded with wands and goodies .. probably flying all day while invisible and hasted polymorphed into a pit fiend and dropping fireballs ... ok maybe thats a bit 3rd edition but still close enough.

The reason casters get to make concentration checks is because nobody is happy seeing their action wasted. As far as casters depending on soldier to keep enemies away that is only true to an extent at lower levels. If fighters had some of the 4th ed fighters abilities to control an enemy's movement, or if there was a way to make a lockdown fighter...

This discussion is stilted...

Casters aren't SUPPOSED to be able to cast in melee with fighters.... that's why they are casters and not soldiers. As it is I think the rules are still soft on casters.

Caster's ability to cast in combat should be dependent on the attack bonus (skill) of the guy who is trained to BE in melee standing in front him. Ignoring the fact that the guy in front of the caster is a 20th level raging barbarian with a crazy melee bonus is just silly. Casters get to be the hot shots in everything else (mass damage, save or die, massive utility, transportation, raising dead, etc). Let the melee characters rule melee ... it's the one thing they really get to do!!!

Grab yourself some tank soldiers to hide behind and destroy everyone from safety. It creates a nice synergy to a party as well... the caster owns the battle assuming the soldiers keep him safe. Soldiers depend on casters for everything outside melee just about...casters depend on soldiers to keep the bad guys out of their grill.

lastknightleft wrote:

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

then i may be houseruling it back in as a skill and just increasing casters skill points to 3 instead of 2. Should either increase the DC a bit, OR put in ways for people to counter a caster. not both at once. Seems a bit heavy handed

Why not run it as is?

I very likely will be (putting it back the way it was). but i find it interesting that my houserule document in pathfinder is getting longer than my houserule document in 3.5

No i mean why not give it a try as is, you seem to need it to be a skill, I'm asking what's wrong with the current version that you feel it needs to be houseruled back as a skill.

He said why in an earlier post:

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

Should either increase the DC a bit, OR put in ways for people to counter a caster. not both at once. Seems a bit heavy handed.

I tried it RAW, the casters in the party got frustrated. Added a feat that let them reroll a failed attempt. Neither caster was thrilled but are willing to give it another try. I was tempted to remove the x2 to spell level, but figured the added feat still keeps it difficult but allows a determined caster to learn to do it more safely just never completely safely. I might add in a feat to counter the one that allows melee to follow the caster during his free 5 foot step, a bit of an arms race I know, but I want them to be able to do something if they are willing to devote themselves to it. Think of all the meta magic feats they are passing up to do this, I think it's somewhat balanced.

Here's the thing with role-playing ... its like public speaking. Think back to before you started using funny voices and emotions to portray your character. You feel like a dumb-ass when you start talking in character for the first time in front of a group of people. It's an insecurity thing. Every person I have introduced to my group has had to overcome it or left the group. Fortunately my core players all role-play well now and it makes it easier for a new member to role-play and not feel so insecure. It's kind of like an acting troupe.

I recommend the following for your players.

1. Consider reducing the size of your group, make it more manageable and less intimidating.

2. It's hard to role-play if you don't know who your character is: Give incentives for a history that also outlines the character's motives and personality traits.

Incentives: skill points in areas relative to their history. PCs with detailed histories get a "karmic chance" - once when they would die...luck/fate intervenes.

3. Provide exp incentives for those who role-play well.

4. Most importantly make sure you role-play all the NPCs in a way that engages the players.

If the above suggestions don't help, consider: Do I want to forget about role-play and just do a combat style game...maybe 4.0 is better for your party. Currently I role-play with my guys in 3.5 and on thursdays I play a 4.0 game with some newer players who don't role-play much at all. Different game ... different style of enjoyment.

Last note... some people simply are not good role players. Their personalities are such they are either too insecure, immature or they are too "social". Example of "social" being the type of player that after you build suspense with a lengthy description of the dragons lair for the parties final epic battle... they interrupt to tell the group what they did saturday night ... killing the flow and mood.

Some people make good friends but bad role-players... we are very careful who we let play in our main group now. In fact if we want a new player we invite them for one session without letting them know its an ongoing thing. If we think they fit we then invite them to play on a regular basis.

Some things to chew on..hope it helps.

The title says all.

** spoiler omitted **
The people I play with, they're not "unwilling" to roleplay. They are completely "uncapable" of it.
Their character sheets have absolutely NO information written on the upper part, except for race, class & level -they are faceless, hairless creatures existing in a non-dimensional, wheightless space.
They do not have names -they call themselves with their real name, as there is no "in-game" mode of conversation among them.
They have no background -and when asked to create one to use as plot hook for the first session, only two bothered ("I won a turnament" & "I saved my village from goblins").
They make their characters perform stupid, slapstick actions such as kicking their NPC patron (a noble) or addressing her with "Yo, brother" (sic), "saucy wench" and such.
Maybe it's because the campaign just started, they had no time to grow attached to their characters, but still... not even the name...

I can see where this is headed, and maybe that's what they really want: simple, easygoing gaming session to unwind from the pains of everyday life. I have nothing againts such style of play, but it's not what I'd like -and being a part of the group, I think I'm entitled to my share of fun.

I'll get to the point: being a DM for more than 12 years, words fail to express my disappointment of our latest gaming session. Not in the players' actions, but in my inability to make them hooked. I have red Savage Tide, I know it has potential, but I am at loss on how to make them feel interest in the roleplaying aspect of the campaign (which most...

ok thanks ... next question then...

Could the mount charge as its action and trample someone (trample feat).. and the Paladin use the charge to attack with a lance for his action?

Some questions have come up for mounted combat. It is my understanding a Paladin and his warhorse both get attacks autonomously. ie: both could take a full attack side by side. This I would assume to be the same if the paladin is mounted. However does this mean the paladin on his turn could full attack and then the mount could move (for its turn)? This effectively moves the paladin from combat after he full attacks... It seems like a significant advantage.. but legal. Anyone know the official ruling on this?

Some questions have come up for mounted combat. It is my understanding a Paladin and his warhorse both get attacks autonomously. ie: both could take a full attack side by side. This I would assume to be the same if the paladin is mounted. However does this mean the paladin on his turn could full attack and then the mount could move (for its turn)? This effectively moves the paladin from combat after he full attacks... It seems like a significant advantage.. but legal. Anyone know the official ruling on this?

My order of Dungeon magazines never arrived. I have called several times trying to get a response to resolve this issue. Please email me back so this can be corrected. thank you

Eric
[Edit: Email address redacted.]

Bards are very good and too often underrated. However they are more of a utility PC and therefore are not good in small parties usually. The bigger the party the stronger the bard becomes. For instance if you don't have strong melee types to hold the line the bard isn't going to do it. After you have 2 tanks, a healer, and a caster the Bard becomes more useful. As the party grows so does the Bard's power... his buffs enhance everyone .. hence more people is more enhancing.

Beyond that he has been a strong "enchanter". Equal access to charm spells: suggestions, confusion, charm person etc as other spell casters makes him very strong in the "controlling" department. Focus him in enchanting with high charisma and he is very capable.

Lastly the more skilled your playing group is the stronger the Bard becomes. His skill sets, lore, and high charisma are very valuable to groups that lean on heavy roll playing and dynamics outside of combat.

To be honest in my group that has been running for other twenty five years

no one ever plays the bard.

even thou the new rules give it a bit more it just has never worked as the jack of all trades.

I think it still is way off in terms of effectiveness and what it can do.

Can anyone please tell me if you would play one why?

I've been reading a lot of posts about the new PFG and like the positive press so far. I'm curious how compatible the system is to a low magic world though? In 3.5 I tended to power down the magic items found in the world. This led to spellcasters being even more overpowered in a relative way to non-casters.

I guess I'm curious if the PRG has better parity between the classes when you take magic items out of the equation as the players progress levels. Thoughts from those with some PRG play experience?

I believe players underestimate the importance of darkvision than I think it isn't useful.

Right on. Darkvision is very big. Assuming your DM plays his "monsters" to their tactical best. Darkness spells, shattering light sources, etc turns a strong party into a blind weak party. Even when a light source is present its a big disadvantage when it only throws 30' of light.

Sure vs dumb monsters that will wander into the light for you no big deal. However, any drow or any number of other underground intelligent monsters is going to pick the party apart from outside the limits of sight.

Of course everything is relative to the magic level in your world.

Great movie. Really enjoyed it. Refreshing to see something intelligent enough NOT to be Hollywoodized shake and serve. Peter Jackson has solidified himself as the one director whos movies I will go to because he is involved in the project.

I've always felt The Conan the Barbarian soundtrack was pretty ideal. The music was made for different scenes in the movie. Songs for thieving in cult temples, bazaar music .. and then for the epic showdown(beatdown) ... "Anvil of Crom" DUM DUM DA DUM DA DUM DUM DUM DUM ... love that song

Yes I'm Evil - pre: any evil. Your evil character may make all the self-serving, nasty...even overtly malicious party-disruptive actions he/she chooses and no one may use out of game knowledge to complain about it or change their character's actions in game.

Yes I'm Chaotic - pre: any chaotic. Your chaotic character may make all the crazy, ridiculous...even campaign-derailing actions he/she chooses and no one may use out of game knowledge to complain about it or change their character's actions in game.

Greater Evil/Chaotic - pre: (Yes i'm Chaotic / Yes I'm Evil accordingly) The DM may not use your characters disruptive actions as cause to penalize you in any way. Further the DM must spend countless hours retooling his campaign with fresh material before every session in order to account for your disruptive actions in the prior session.
(This includes taking time to reroll PCs you have killed off directly or indirectly, making new adventure threads to replace the ones you derailed, and introducing plausible threads why the party should stay together.)

Most unbalanced character you ran?
I wouldn't call it unbalanced, but every DM I've ran by hated it. He was a Paladin/Shadowdancer. The DMs thought it was horrible and banned me in multiple games from using it.

lol I'd ban him! Paladins aren't allowed to multi-class in my world... no less into sneaky Shadow Dancers

I enjoy the posts here and am curious about the other posters. I'm guessing most people are older..

Age?
Occupation?
Type of Person?
Interesting Points?
Gaming Style?
Favorite Module ever?
Most unbalanced character you ran?

I'm 38 yo male that works as a chiropractor and real estate investor. Got into gaming in 4th grade (AD&D). Kind of a middle of the path kid in school ... knew some popular kids, some tough kids, some geeky kids.

Done some cool stuff like backpacking around Europe and visiting Russia. Taught many people how to play D&D over the years and how to make the game "realistic" (no trolls randomly chilling in the tavern basement).

Early on Monty Hall campaigns were the thing, later balanced campaigns and now I've learned I no longer enjoy gaming unless its with players that like serious role-playing.

Currently I don't have the time to run a campaign but left off running Savage Tide which I feel is a really good thread.

Favorite module ever: Tomb of Horrors .. I like challenges and that one kept us biting our nails and on the edge of our seats.

In 5th grade, Elric of the Golden Blade was my character. We had books of our magic items and he had a "Golden Vorpal blade", "neckband of proof vs Vorpal Weapons", and "Magnetic Rod". lol If you remember any of these Monty Hall weapons your are old-school hard core.

House Rules:

Karmic chance: If you write a detailed history your player gets one karmic chance. ie: Once when he would die..fate intervenes and something else happens. It helps balance my tough world.

Perks for writing interesting historys

Paladin's have perm. pro. from evil. Any ally wihin 5' of the paladin gets +1 to hit and on saves vs evil. No anti-paladins.

4'11" step replaces 5' step for casters. Meaning you can move but not get out of striking range to cast with a 5' step.

Multiple nerfing of many spells.

Restrictions on feats that enhance spell DCs

Damage to casters stacks from the end of their prior round to their current round for determining concentration checks to cast. Damage inflicted while casting counts double for purposes of con checks.

Invisibility can be seen through by attempting to disbelieve. Success allows detection but the invisible party gets lesser benefits.

You can ready an action within a cone of sight. ie: I ready to shoot an arrow at anyone casting.

Opposed ability checks are determined by doubling the ability bonuses (or using a D10). (An 18 str +4 vs a 10 str +0 over a d20 is unrealistic)

I enjoy the posts here and am curious about the other posters. I'm guessing most people are older..

Age?
Occupation?
Type of Person?
Interesting Points?
Gaming Style?
Favorite Module ever?
Most unbalanced character you ran?

I'm 38 yo male that works as a chiropractor and real estate investor. Got into gaming in 4th grade (AD&D). Kind of a middle of the path kid in school ... knew some popular kids, some tough kids, some geeky kids.

Done some cool stuff like backpacking around Europe and visiting Russia. Taught many people how to play D&D over the years and how to make the game "realistic" (no trolls randomly chilling in the tavern basement).

Early on Monty Hall campaigns were the thing, later balanced campaigns and now I've learned I no longer enjoy gaming unless its with players that like serious role-playing.

Currently I don't have the time to run a campaign but left off running Savage Tide which I feel is a really good thread.

Favorite module ever: Tomb of Horrors .. I like challenges and that one kept us biting our nails and on the edge of our seats.

In 5th grade, Elric of the Golden Blade was my character. We had books of our magic items and he had a "Golden Vorpal blade", "neckband of proof vs Vorpal Weapons", and "Magnetic Rod". lol If you remember any of these Monty Hall weapons your are old-school hard core.

You really had to endure a lot. The way you deal with your adverse past says a lot about who you are and your strength.

Myself, I was a pretty tough kid. I got in a lot of fights young with neighborhood kids. Occasionally I was bullied over the years by bigger kids. (Odd how the guys your own size or smaller never pick a fight with you...) lol .. I recall one instance of a kid twice my size stealing my sneakers and throwing them in a tree at my bus-stop.

I'd say most the bullying in my life was from my dad though. Total a-hole growing up. Lots of work to be done at my house and little affection. A slap upside the head was far more likely than a pat on the back. So bad that my friends wouldn't come to my house... my dad would put them to work.

Of course you learn from all experiences in life... in my case I found out how hard life can be and not to expect things to come easy. In fact people who feel entitlement and expect things easy without earning them bother me to this day ... it tends to be a theme in my campaigns. You want something... earn it. Escapism into Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander, C.S. Lewis in 3rd grade and then into AD&D in 4th grade brought me a lot of joy and balance.

I never bullied any kids but I can think of times where I wish I was stronger and stood up for others that were bullied. For the record, my dad and I have both grown a lot and have on the whole a good relationship today.(He's still an a-hole on occasion ;) )

I've never seen a PC paladin "detect" their adventuring buddies unless one just happens to screaming "I'm evil" (such as worshiping an evil god, in which case why is the paladin interested in helping them?)

This seems a bit naive. As a free effect a Paladin would detect evil everyone I'd think. Still I agree with you about the only under dire instances theme. Paladins simply will not brook evil.. someone in the party that is evil will inevitably act that way requiring a feud if the association is drawn out.

I could see a Paladin associating with someone he though he could convert for a short period if there were real signs of progress.

In addition, the Paladin should continuously attempt to redeem the evil creature/being.

Redeeming done preferably with a sword and multiple smites for tough cases.

1. The DM has last word on rulings and may rule on the fly to expedite play.

1a. Bribing the DM is legal. He graciously accepts all the free pizza, drinks, and other perks for providing impromptu sessions and allowing rules variants he otherwise dislikes...

"Don't Get Caught With Your Pants Down!"

Players are hired to investigate several missing travelers that never arrived at their destinations. A few locals along the ten mile stretch prior to the "Country Inn" have knowledge of seeing some of said travelers. No one questioned beyond the inn has seen them.

The inn itself has a few working employees and regulars.. a very warm and jovial owner. Choose an eclectic group to your taste for interesting role-play. They are all red-herrings. A few regulars have some information about the travelers having been there. Make some conflict between a regular "Bastard beat me in dice...I swear he cheated!!" and one traveler. If specifically pressed no one recalls seeing them leave. In fact the stable hand who lives near by found it odd that the last traveler sold his horse to the owner as he had a 20 mile trip ahead of him (per the owners story).

If questioned the owner initially fails to recall the lost travelers. Once evidence of them being there is uncovered he "recalls" some of them, feigning poor memory. (Give him high bluff.. maybe a rogue)

Feel free to make the owner a combat threat of some sort (rogue/fighter/wizard) or not to balance the encounter. Choose a fitting back story for why he is evil enough to do what he does....

The owner in reality is despicable and has a trained Otyugh living in the sewage of his outhouse. Wealthy travelers he thinks no one will miss he graciously overfeeds and orders the creature to pull down and kill when they come to make a "visit"... the owner keeps their possessions afterwards. :)

Should the PCs start closing in on him, he will attempt to "overfeed" them after the bar area closes (no witnesses).. whether they agree or not ... he will attempt to do away with them in the same method. Evidence to his guilt can be found in his personal possessions and the holes in his stories as well as the sewage.

Due to the ambush nature of the encounter the PC unlucky enough to need the facilities first (die roll .. or over-drinking dwarf .. your choice) should be given fair chance to alert the others .. (If he shouts out they hear). The creature can presumably exit its hole to continue battle if it fails on its pull down attempt. If a battle with the Otyugh ensues the owner feigns fear of it and then backstabs/attacks the nearest PC. Clearly a dangerous mini-adventure which can be nerfed some and/or expanded.

The theme is comical however and that's why I like it. The story of the PC who dies or almost dies on the crapper will be good for laughs for a long time... in and out of game. Imagine the burly barbarian PC that survives who refuses to go "potty" by himself without a buddy for several weeks.

End note: Generally PCs never use a bathroom in campaigns. If this is the case MAKE SURE you have them need to on the journey before the inn a couple times without incident to remove any red flags when you announce who has to go at the inn. Also announce it amidst assigning events to each player "Grog you feel tipsy and need to lie down, Sir Frederick the maid catches your eye and you think she wants yo to talk to her, Nephestus after eating so much you are feeling natures call... etc"

DMs get to have fun.... ;)

What I usually do is give the players one clue to base their back story on. I use clues like this:

"You are in the capital city and for some reason you want to leave there urgently and not via legal channels."

For the rest I leave the players free to write whatever they want, as long as they use this one fact. The nice thing is that their backstory is then mostly compatible with the campaign, and that the players get inspired and are not at a loss where to begin.

The second thing I do is that I do not write the whole PC adventures at the start of the campaign. Instead, I try to add an incident per player per adventure and see how the players react to that incident. Depending on their reaction I adapt the story and add a new incident in the next adventure.
One advantage of this is that the backstory can more easily be adapted to the main story, because since the main story is already happening around them, the players do their own combining (e.g. by involving NPCs from the main plot into their own background plot).
Another advantage is that I can easily see whether a player is interested in the backstory at all. If a player does not do anything with the backstory, I know that I do not need to work it out further and I do not get frustrated because I have written a plotline I cannot use. Moreover the player does not get frustrated because he is forced to follow a story he does not like.

I am still experimenting with this, but so far it seems to work well. The nice thing is that player actions inspire me, and my little plot fragments inspire the players. This really creates a feeling that we are creating the story together.

Right on! Breaking up the linear nature of campaigns generates some great ideas and storylines. I really like your idea of giving them a "clue" to work with. In your example the clue handles the issue of "why are we together" by the characters history (presumably they all need to get out of town for different reasons). Very often "plausible association" can be tough when your not spoon feeding the adventure.

Another "tactic" I like...which you may or not... is I don't offer any adventure at all sometimes. Meaning its up to the PCs to figure out what's worth doing. I find it pretty lame when hanging out at the local tavern leads to amazing adventures every level. Just like in life ..opportunity is out there .. go find it...or don't...

Leads are always available to PCs that are alert .. and just like solving a riddle..a PC that unravels a good adventure hook gets bonus xp.

eric warren wrote:

In this light I would like to suggest the value of sub-stories. Before I start a new campaign each player has the option of developing a detailed history for his character....

[emphasis mine]

I think you've hit on a very important point here, that being the option of making such a history. I went through a DMing phase recently where I really tried to get every player to make a relatively complicated background for their PC. This ran into several problems. First, not every player wanted that kind of history. They didn't want to get shoehorned into something at character creation which would limit their ability to develop over the course of the campaign (or, more basically for some, they just couldn't think of anything). Second, I found myself having trouble getting all the main-arc adventures I wanted to coincide well with all the backstory-related adventures which I had found myself obliged to create by requesting so many backstories. This may have taken the form of the players coming up with a story which I didn't have any ideas for, a story which didn't really work well with the overall plot of the campaign, or a story which made little sense for the other PCs to get involved in (which is a problem since I don't like separating the party). So, I've sense backed off of that requirement.

Few thoughts:

Historys shouldn't shoe-horn players... They are writing them and the PC should evolve. If they want a directionless nomad as their character they can write him that way. They can also decide that their PC is evolving in a new direction at any time with some reasonable roleplaying.

I wouldn't necessarily force fit all the back stories into the main arc. Pick the ones that you think fit best now and use them. Sometimes PCs stories don't play in until later in the campaign. Sometimes the tie-ins are very short and loose.

Lastly I never leave it solely to the player to back-story. Their story is based on random rolls that determine socioeconomic status, significant events of childhood etc. So they have a frame to work off (this also prevents crazy heroic backstories) There is a published (now out of print) history generator I use to rough sketch the history with the player. If anyone is interested Ill post the name.

Lastly the players need to list what drives their PC and their interests. This way they aren't the "generic character" and they have a direction to develop the PCs personality in.

I still want a reason for any given PC to be heading into the dungeon, or wherever their initial adventure takes them. I detest peasant farmer boys who suddenly got an urge to go see the world, somehow found both martial training and the equipment with which to implement it, and are now ready for fortune and glory with no other explanation. That being said, if one doesn't wish it, one doesn't have to have more than a paragraph explaining what particular circumstances separate the PC from more common folk and has led them to a life of adventure.

The important part is the word option.

Good Practices In Context / Technique > The Art Of The Railroad

Here is a big secret, and if anyone debates this, they're likely acting to quickly conceal this secret. You won't necessarily find this example in most modern GM books, but this old card trick illustrates exactly what is meant by the "art" of a good railroad on the part of the GM. The ability to do this is essential, whether or not anyone ever admits (or realizes) this is happening.

SPOILER WARNING: If you are a player only, and are not a GM, I recommend discontinuing your reading of this thread.

** spoiler omitted **...

When I play I'm a pretty immersed player. I get most my joy out of creating or moving through a world and exploring it as if it were real. Personally I hate campaigns that are linear or railroaded. Its not hard for me to sense when my choices aren't really mine and it makes the world a lot less "real" to me. The sense that I have control over my character's fate disappears. "What's the point?" is my feeling.

In some cases its a necessary art .. the DM is dying to use his new material, too tired to want to create new paths, etc. The best solution imo though is to have enough detail and plot lines in the PCs immediate environment that no railroading is necessary. Develop enough material to make the plots solid and interesting ... but not fully fleshed unless the PCs commit to them.

Certainly this requires a bit more work. Excess work can be averted to a large degree though by determining the PCs intentions at the end of each session and developing the world based on that direction before the next session.

I suppose I'm of the opinion that the PCs should choose the direction of the story and the DM should provide enough playground for them to do so...

In campaigns I run I like to develop a world with the players that feels alive and wide-open. Nothing makes me less interested in a campaign than when I feel I'm stuck on a linear path being spoon-fed my "adventure". The process for gaming to me is very much about exploring this world that develops around the characters and their free will.

Usually my campaigns consist of multiple possible adventure paths with modules used to fill the different directions the PCs may pursue. Sometimes this can be tough to achieve when playing a pre-published campaign like Savage Tide which involves necessary steps to proceed from module to module.

In this light I would like to suggest the value of sub-stories. Before I start a new campaign each player has the option of developing a detailed history for his character based on some circumstance rolls and creativity. Those players who do so are rewarded small but signficant bonuses based upon their history ... (a skill point here or there, regional knowledge skills, heirloom weapon, etc) Once I have these historys I read them and look for inspiration for sub-plots based on the players own creation (in a sense we both start creating the world)so that every PC has a potential mini-adventure relevant to him should the character spot the hooks or follow the leads placed into the campaign. Generally, players love that their work is paying off and that their characters individuality is being expressed through the campaign and it makes the world feel much more "real".

I'm sure many experienced DMs on here already do things similar to this. For those who don't .. give it a try and watch see if your campaign world doesn't seem more alive and ineresting.

Am I guilty of this mentality because I believe that combats should challenge my players and the threat of death to characters should be real and not "make-believe"?

I am not looking for anything like a TPK but I do enjoy the occusional PC death. Maybe I just come from a different era of play where it wasn't a big deal if your PC died and you just spent the remaining session making a new one. In my gaming circle we use to talk about the characters that died more then the characters that survived.

PC Death can be a powerful moment and is only fairly achieved in combat as opposed to say the powerful moment that is a storyline death of an NPC.

The one thing that I seem to miss about 3.x is the lethality of it over 4E. I have seen far less characters die in a longer time span then in 3.x... I think between a handful of campaigns that I've only seen a single Feylock and a Swordmage die (and the Swordmage was my PC in another game, also just so happens the Feylock died in the same battle.)

I am done rambling now...

It comes to preference .. why do you play? I like to immerse myself in the world. In order to do this the world needs to be very believable. If I can tell that the DM is "helping" the players or throwing softball encounters at the party .. I lose all interest .. there is no challenge and hence no sense of achievement. Just like a Monty haul world may feed ego gratification for some, it simply bores me cause I see the imbalance/unreality of it.

I have a friend who makes figures and is hoping to make a living manufacturing them.

My personal experience in D&D is that I use the nearest figure that fits the template (The cow figure has been used a lot).

I just wondered how many people buy figures and paint them for a specific adventure/campaign, and how many just use what they have got and improvise, also how many just use templates.

dinglesgames.com

We use minis for tactical depiction purposes and for added flair. Players can use any mini they want. However they get bonus xp for providing a unique mini for their PC and extra xp if they paint it. Most players enjoy finding the mini that represents their new cool guy...

The party begins their adventure provided with separate back-stories as a group of slaves on a slaving ship headed to a large port. I roll random "fate rolls" for determining their fate. (roll 10,12) decide 2 members are sold to slave owners that pit them in a gladatorial arena. The third member gets a 2 on his "fate roll" (I roll secretly). So I decide a particularly cruel fate ...

He is happy to learn he has been purchased by an elderly wealthy noble. He is picked up by servants and carriaged to the estate where he is placed in fine quarters and cleaned up and fed fine food. He can't stop bragging to the other players who's characters are in their slave pens awaiting their next death match eating gruel. His bragging gets more obnoxious as the lord's barber feathers his hair and youths spray scented oils on him. I'm trying my hardest not to crack up as DM as the player still hasn't caught on when slave women dress him in fine silks of "lavender and pink". He is loving life and flirts with the women.

Finally he is brought to meet the Lord who is a senator, speculating on whether his half-elf will be a messenger, translator or second for the new lord. The player is let into the Lord's chamber by 2 large eunich guards. Where the lord seated on his bed starts to commend himself on finding a half-elf slave and how he has always admired the elven people and their culture. It goes on like this for a few moments of roleplay ... and the player is CLUELESS (mind we are all over 20). It's not till the Lord pats on the bed for him to come sit next to him that the sexual inclinations of the senator finally dawns on the player.

Priceless. No, the expression on his face was beyond priceless. Jaw on the table eyes opened like saucers like he just got caught on Punked. I can't hold character as the whole rest of the group starts busting up. The Lord presses the point (verbally not literally). I make him squirm very uncomfortably in roleplay dialogue with the Lord and his burly guards at the door for quite some time .. (he not knowing what the outcome will be and protesting VERY nervously in and out of character) ... for quite some time (nonstop laughing) before giving him an out (which yes he takes). Ahh .. sometimes DMs get to play too... ;)