TRPG General Chat

12:13 AM

@JonathanHobbs For your worldbuilding consideration (and higher quality nightmares for everyone else): m0rtality.com/post/25873460834/…

Simon Gill

@BESW I do need higher quality nightmares... they've been getting tame recently.

BESW

@SimonGill It wasn't a nightmare, but this morning I was woken up in the middle of an android zoo security guard busting a daylight break-in by covert ops who were rappelling down from the top of the zoo's glass geodesic dome.

Oblivious Sage

@SimonGill: The worst are the nightmares that make you wake up with your heart pounding, and then you think about them and you're like, "Wait a minute, that wasn't scary! WTF, subconscious???"

Simon Gill

@BESW That is peculiar. Did you win?

BESW

@SimonGill I wasn't any particular character in the scenario, and I woke up while the android was ripping the rappelling lines out of the air and hacking into the intercom to announce "INTRUDER ALERT IN THE HOTHOUSE."

I don't remember my dreams very often, but when I do.... this is one of the normal ones.

BESW

1:06 AM

Dear Wizards: for having a massive franchise with "Dragon" in its name, you've got surprisingly few dragon illustrations and fewer good ones.

BESW

1:45 AM

So, I've got a mechanic were a monster possesses a PC. The monster vanishes from the playing field and on its turn uses the PC's body to take its actions (the PC doesn't lose her own turn).

We're using Gnome Stew print-and-fold minis, and I'm trying to figure a way to indicate possession.

Simon Gill

Paperclip? OR are they not big enough for that?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW hrmmmm Possession hats!

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Pretty much. My thought so far is to print out more minis, but cut them so it's just a folded slip of paper about 1/3 the width of the mini, with this on it:

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW nice

Simon Gill

Shiny.

BESW

1:48 AM

@BrianBallsun-Stanton I've already established that spirits in my campaign get "Tribal tattoo" minis.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

works

BESW

Using this for the actual spirits: aglinskas.deviantart.com/art/…

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

Or just print a second mini for possessed characters

er

BESW

In case anyone doesn't know about the Gnome Stew minis, here: gnomestew.com/print-and-fold-gnome-miniatures

They're really awesome. 1''-to-a-side folding triangles with a locking slit in the base for stability, and you can print them with any picture you like on the two visible sides.

I have a logistics question that deals with a specific power the monk's got and the fact that most of the bosses I'm planning are Huge or better.

Duel of Fates
[...] Close burst 2 [..]
Effect: The squares adjacent to the burst become a zone that lasts until the target drops to 0 hit points or until you leave the zone. Nothing can teleport into or out of the area enclosed by the zone. The target treats the zone as blocking terrain, and any creature other than you or the target that enters the zone or starts its turn there takes 10 psychic damage. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

urgh

okay, so it's a mild "go away"

and a "you! Duel"...

BESW

1:53 AM

Apparently I don't actually have to ask the question.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

I've seen worse

so "adjacent"

yes, close bursts are funky for huge creatures

the space the creature occupies do not count as the burst

BESW

But for completeness: How can I make the player feel okay with their power choice without making all the bosses smaller than they really ought to be?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

So basically the burst gets "bigger" for large mobs

BESW

...it does?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

yep

BESW

1:55 AM

Wait, let me post the whole thing.

'cause I may have clipped out important bits.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

note that this is not how it works with mounts

BESW

The burst isn't centered on the target.

Duel of Fates
You zero in on an enemy and commit yourself to its defeat by creating a field to keep it close and hedge out interference.
Daily Implement, Psionic, Psychic, Zone
Standard Action Close burst 2
Target: One creature in the burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 4d8 + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target grants combat advantage (save ends).
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: The squares adjacent to the burst become a zone that lasts until the target drops to 0 hit points or until you leave the zone. Nothing can teleport into or out of the area enclosed by the zone. The …

wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/power.aspx?id=16197

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

oh.

that kinda sucks.

BESW

Would it be reasonable to rejigger it like... this?

[...]
Standard Action Close burst 2
Target: One creature in the burst
[...]
Effect: The squares adjacent to a close burst 2 centered on the target become a zone that lasts until the target drops to 0 hit points or until you leave the zone. Nothing can teleport into or out of the area enclosed by the zone. The target treats the zone as blocking terrain, and any creature other than you or the target that enters the zone or starts its turn there takes 10 psychic damage. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

uh

that works

BESW

1:58 AM

So the original way to determine a valid target doesn't change, but the enclosing zone resizes according to the target's size.

(And still keeps you inside it.)

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

yep

BESW

No obvious breaking or Unfortunate Consequences you can see right off?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

It's not actually a very good power?

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton It fits his build really well?

Conceptually.

Not... yanno, mechanically necessarily.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW I'm sure it does. It's also not very good

BESW

2:00 AM

But in this case it'll ground the dragon.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

urgh

right, cause 3d

that's... cute

BESW

I'm actually happy about this.

The party's largely melee, and 3d encounters make my brain hurt at the best of times.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW yes.

Mind you, it's gonna suck to be the monk

cause uh, all it takes is a slide from the dragon and the daily ends

or push

BESW

I've given the dragon a push with its wings and a slide with its tail.

But since they're modular body parts, the party could 'kill' those first.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

... yeah

BESW

2:07 AM

Hrm.

Never mind, gonna make the wings do a prone.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

I'd change the text to "ends his turn outside the zone"

BESW

Tail slide is plenty.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton ooh, good call.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

cause then it takes some effort to drop the daiyl

BESW

Why do you feel the power is weak?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

It drops when the monk does

Very hard to keep up

BESW

2:13 AM

....I love my group.

"But it makes kicking its ass more epic."

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW cool.

this is monk... what

BESW

Yeah, this is the kobold centered breath monk who specializes in mobility instead of forced movement.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

19?

BESW

22 this coming session.

Oooh, the power. Sorry.

19.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

mmm

okay, well, 19 is a bad level

BESW

2:20 AM

Sweet. I've reached L1E damage that rolls d20s.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW ::wince::

BESW

Sorry, was that too bloodthirsty?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW no

just ::wince::

make sure to roll them with glee

and to inform them that they're... damage... not to-hit

BESW

5d20+20. [cackles madly]

5d20

Dice Service

15

2

9

16

2

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

2:24 AM

@BESW ::wince::

That's... gonna sting

BESW

2:50 AM

...I want to run a game where this is a reasonable thing to wear: obscuruslupa.tumblr.com/post/40286830557/anthropwashere

Mathematically, which is superior? Brutal 1 or +4 damage vs bloodied?

Depends on the damage die, right?

(1d4, apparently.)

Oblivious Sage

@BESW: brutal always add +0.5 average damage per hit; the bloodied is harder to calculate, and depends on a lot of things

in theory enemies should be bloodied half the time, making it worth about +2 damage per hit; the problem is that 1) if your party uses good tactics and always focuses fire, your targets may be bloodied less than half the time (since your entire party is going for bloodied targets), and 2) you risk losing the damage to overkill

if you're looking for more DPR, go with brutal; if you're looking for more nova capability, go with the +4 vs bloodied

BESW

Ah.

Thanks!

I'm not very mathy.

Simon Gill

3:32 AM

Now this gallery.kingdomdeath.com/Forge-God is a monster miniature.

Lord_Gareth

I live once more.

Oh you're kidding me.

BESW

?

Simon Gill

@Lord_Gareth About?

Lord_Gareth

"Are knowledge checks fallible"

This is one of the things that gets to me in a game.

I have offered a rational answer

Which is a feat since the first thing I did on reading that title was curse in two languages

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

good answer

Simon Gill

3:44 AM

Why does it get to you so much?

BESW

I'm aware of multiple cases where D&D monster lore encourages the GM to feed the players misinformation unless the check is remarkably high.

Lord_Gareth

@SimonGill Mostly because it's a jerk move, but partially because I've dealt with many GMs in real life - and many more online - who come from the old school of gaming where murdering PCs is a hobby that they should passively tolerate, and reams of misinformation even on a high check are par for that course

BESW

@Lord_Gareth So your problem isn't with the question being asked, but that it has an answer you find distasteful?

Lord_Gareth

@BESW - There are no references in 3.X forward to misinformation except those I described below. There's also some cases where an alternate Knowledge check gives purely fluff information.

No, my problem is that it should not be a question in the first place. It's a horrible policy to inflict on a game and it should have died out with 2e

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth I can actually see some utility in it

But it means giving creative control over to the players

Lord_Gareth

3:48 AM

Asplain please

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

something like "state 5 potential facts, and make a knowledge check. Some proprotion of them will be true"

Simon Gill

@Lord_Gareth Except that a game about exploration can play with misinformation. Using it in games about dungeons and traps is less helpful of course (and jerk DMs are always going to be a prolem no matter what tools they use)

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

Which means you can assign certainties and other interesting things.

but then this becomes part of exploration

instead of being a dick and being on a power trip.

BESW

@SimonGill This. It's not a matter of the act, it's a matter of the application.

Lord_Gareth

It's also a matter of the resource investment. If you're playing D&D, can you get your skill points back? How about your feats? In a White Wolf game, can you take back your dots?

No. And being told that you invested those points in Knowledge (Religion) only to discover that your DM is going to give you lies about things is very, very grating.

BESW

3:50 AM

@Lord_Gareth Umm. That's an entirely different tangential issue dealing with the party agreeing on how the system works ahead of time.

That's not a Knowledge Check issue at all.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth But yes, this is all a function of the social contract.

BESW

Take a deep breath and figure out what it actually is you're mad about: sounds like jerk GMs who don't communicate the rules they play by.

And I'm mad about those too.

Lord_Gareth

I suppose what initially caused the overflowing volcano of rage was the poster's statement that he thought Knowledge checks worked like that in the first place.

Which, since I've had numerous knife-fights about that recently, flipped my lid quite rapidly and with great height.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth and thank you for restraining yourself.

Lord_Gareth

I've no desire to beat the banning record I set with the Paizo forums.

Registered, posted one thread, thrown out in four days.

BESW

3:54 AM

I think his question also has a slight tang of the issue of mechanical vs flavor knowledge ("it hates fire" vs "vulnerable 10 fire and can't impose the weakened condition when dealt fire damage").

LitheOhm

I'm looking forward to seeing how others view it. I side that misinformation is feasible (I study tests and "know" wrong answers sometimes, don't I?). I do however believe that making the question system-agnostic is hurting it

Lord_Gareth

Well, the idea is generally speaking that the PCs are told the mechanics OOC and, theoretically, that the DM then restates that in flavor terms.

Most DMs do sorta stop at the OOC information and let players imagine it.

BESW

And many other GMs provide information only in terms the characters could understand.

Lord_Gareth

Which is okay if you can communicate that /clearly/

LitheOhm

@BESW I'm a fan of that.

Lord_Gareth

3:57 AM

Like, the above with fire

BESW

That's how I started out, though it's changed recently.

Lord_Gareth

"It is especially vulnerable to fire, and exposure to that bane also weakens the creature," would sound good to me.

Though admittedly I might look at the DM and go, "So...weakens how?"

LitheOhm

Kobold, female sorcerer 4 undermines immersion. Yusdrayl, the unchallenged arcane leader of the kobold pack, doesn't

BESW

Between 4e's explicit statement that all creatures understand the exact mechanics of all effects placed on them, and my increased desire to include the players in decision-making, I'm much more upfront about my encounter mechanics.

Lord_Gareth

@LitheOhm - I usually don't reveal class levels. How would you even /tell/ that? But I would say, for example, that their Know: Arcana reveals common trappings of arcane spellwork

Which does tell them something useful right off the bat.

Class levels, especially in 3.X, are essentially a metagame concept anyway

LitheOhm

4:00 AM

@Lord_Gareth stemmed off the mechanical versus flavor. A golem could accomplish the same. "Fire has a curing effect on it," is more flavorful than "it will be healed x amount of damage per x damage it would otherwise take"

BESW

@SimonGill I love the ideas in your answer, but it's really about how to use misinformation constructively, rather than the different approaches to the accuracy of knowledge checks.

Lord_Gareth

With how freely multiclassing is available and how many different ways there are to express a concept saying "He's a fighter," is not only boring, it borders on being inherently inaccurate

BESW

Is there some way you can hit closer to the OP's mark without making it a list answer?

Lord_Gareth

I mean, like

LitheOhm

some of my PCs prefer the 4 sorcerer trick. They're not interested in flavor

Lord_Gareth

4:02 AM

Let's take this list of concepts:

Simon Gill

@BESW Well, I can't state for certain how any other system handles Knowledge checks. I was trying to get to the root of the issue... but yes, the second paragraph is more for "How can I use misinformation well?"

Lord_Gareth

I have a savage warrior with a claymore, a shape-shifting crusader for nature with an animal companion, an old man with a spellbook, a dual-wielding assassin, a mobile forward scout, a holy warrior on a crusade against orcs, and an animal trainer.

And I tell you without hyperbole

That all of those people are Rangers

BESW

@Lord_Gareth Class levels are essentially metagame, but levels are not: an astonishing number of spells and abilities work off HD.

LitheOhm

@BESW you have a point about spells HD, but I side with @Lord_Gareth about the archetypal understanding of "ranger," etc

BESW

But this is entirely tangential to the original concept, and I don't think anybody's disagreeing with you on that.

Lord_Gareth

4:05 AM

@BESW The idea that a character grows tougher, faster, more skilled and more trained is not a metagame concept, no. The idea of 'levels' are. D&D characters don't recognize HD. The closest thing they come to the idea would be using it to measure the strength of a soul or life force, since energy drain affects it

LitheOhm

there's a feat that uses the sense motive skill to assess an opponent's relative power to the character

that goes by HD, but I don't think it announces it by HD

Lord_Gareth

@LitheOhm - And it's a horrible feat that should have never been designed, since it not only doesn't announce it in any useful fashion it doesn't MEASURE it in a useful fashion either.

BESW

I find it difficult to imagine that in a world where spells effect creatures in recognizable, quantifiable ways that are directly based on HD, and the same world is filled with towers of wizards dedicated to fully understanding the universe in general and magic in particular, that nobody sat down for some empirical testing to figure out what HD are.

6

LitheOhm

@Lord_Gareth lol. Glad you know the one I'm referring to.

Lord_Gareth

Most undead, for example, have far more HD than you might think for the challenge they pose to players of a certain level

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

4:07 AM

@BESW And thus we get to Potter and the Natural 20 :) That literally has it as canon that a group of wizards many years ago figured out the rules by testing and published books about it in world :)

Lord_Gareth

@BESW That line of thought only goes horrifically wrong places, because I think those wizards might first be interested in figuring out how it is that if they drown a being, then raise it from the dead after removing all water from its lungs, it drowns again

And again

Forever and ever and ever

And never stops drowning no matter what they do to it.

LitheOhm

@BESW just for you, I'm going to make a philosopher-wizard whose purpose is to unlock the mystery of the HD. I'd never thought of it quite like that

Simon Gill

@BESW Having played in 2 larp systems with quantifiable rules and bored magic users - I find it just as difficult. Research regeneration with chickens is good for the local butchers ;)

Lord_Gareth

Trying to discover RAW in-game only ends in blood, folks. Don't do it.

LitheOhm

@Lord_Gareth I dunno. Our philosophers have gone on some "wtf?" tangents, it's not always rational

BESW

4:09 AM

@Lord_Gareth Ia! Ia! Fhtagn!

Lord_Gareth

Heh.

I still have PTSD from a thread - you may sometimes see me refer to it as THE THREAD - where the topic was, "Is class fluff immutable?"

We spent twelve pages - twelve BLACK AND ACCURSED PAGES - arguing about if a player could flavor her sorcerer's hair as being made of fire as long as she didn't tag a mechanical effect onto it.

BESW

Here's the thing: it is not a metagame mechanic if an in-game character can figure it out through experimentation: it's a physical law.

Lord_Gareth

TWELVE PAGES where my side cited eighteen different examples of what we were talking about

And it only ended because something MORE insipid, wretched, and vile came up.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth Wow, that's silly. And that's why we don't have threads here :)

Simon Gill

@Lord_Gareth Your side being?

As in, what was the premise of your argument?

Lord_Gareth

4:12 AM

@SimonGill The premise was, and remains: "Fluff exists as an expression of mechanics, and mechanics measure how a character interacts with a game world. Fluff explains mechanics, it does not cause mechanics and thus it is inherently mutable."

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth what system?

LitheOhm

@BrianBallsun-Stanton it's safer this way.

Lord_Gareth

A great example being an inner-city thug who dips a level of Lion Totem Barbarian to get pounce.

Did he go train with the Lion Tribe? No, the dude has huge adrenaline rushes and tears into his enemies with desperate fury because his whole life has been do-or-die since the day his mother threw him onto the streets.

BESW

@Lord_Gareth [blink] Your final pronoun confuses me.

Lord_Gareth

?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

4:14 AM

Fluff mutability is a function of the social contract

BESW

You're saying that fluff is mutable, right?

LitheOhm

not sure I follow the linkup from sorcerer-hair-continually-defies-laws-of-physics to balls-to-the-wall-thug

Lord_Gareth

@BESW - Yes

@LitheOhm - I can name you three beings in 3.5 that are made of fire or extremely on fire, but that fire doesn't burn anything or shed any light.

Thus, her hair could be 'fire' in that sense and have no further mechanical effects

Because this is D&D

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@Lord_Gareth It's D&D with a simulation fetish

Lord_Gareth

But the other side said that if you want fire for hair you either need to take a template or mock up some kind of horribly bad mechanic for it.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

4:16 AM

I can understand why people who buy into the fetish would not want "hair-on-fire"

BESW

@LitheOhm It's a poor comparison, because the only relation is that both involve fluff without mechanical implication.

@LitheOhm In the case of the thug, the explicit fluff usually associated with the feature has been treated as mutable and thus re-written to make sense in context.

LitheOhm

one is a class ability, the thug can have it however they want it I suppose. The other is a physical, tangible effect. At the very least it would come up in roleplay

@BESW that fluff I agree with.

BESW

In the case of the hair, the unstated assumption that hair is not on fire has no mechanic effect, is thus fluff, and thus hair can be said to have any non-mechanical property.

Lord_Gareth

Essentially, yes.

And as long as the fluff change proposed matches up to the DM's campaign setting, there's no reason to say that THIS fluff can be changed, but THAT fluff can't.

LitheOhm

@BESW I believe I can see the premise, but I see it as a different realm than how someone learned a class ability

Lord_Gareth

4:19 AM

(Incidentally, the beings that are on-fire-without-being-on-fire are Nightmares, Efreet, and hilariously enough Fire Elementals)

(Did you know that Fire Elementals don't shed light and only burn things if they deliberately attack them?)

BESW

@LitheOhm Fair enough, and this brings me to the problem I have run into with this concept.

LitheOhm

@Lord_Gareth which is an assumed property of those things.

Simon Gill

@Lord_Gareth So, how does this link to people discovering the mechanics of the game system through in-universe experimentation?

LitheOhm

@BESW what's that?

BESW

@LitheOhm What is and is not mechanical can be interpreted very differently by different players and groups.

Lord_Gareth

4:20 AM

@SimonGill - Well, first, there's the slight problem of there not really being any mechanics that aren't abstractions. Hit points, levels, armor class, spell levels, skill checks, experience points, all of these are abstractions of more complex concepts

LitheOhm

@BESW I hadn't considered that. Interesting

BESW

You're having trouble imagining a non-mechanical version of the "hair-on-fire" quality. @Lord_Gareth isn't.

Simon Gill

@Lord_Gareth Like particles and waves?

LitheOhm

@BESW probably a good call.

Lord_Gareth

Which means that attempting to discover those things in-game is essentially like suddenly seeing the fourth wall

And hiring wizards to figure out what this giant wall is doing all over the universe

BESW

4:22 AM

What about alignment? (I know, I know, boo/hiss.) Many alignment arguments can be boiled down to one person considering them to be simply a game mechanic, and another person considering them real-world intangibles.

LitheOhm

@Lord_Gareth which is probably what we would be doing if we had scrying magic instead of electron microscopes

Lord_Gareth

@BESW I'd argue that there's a different source for alignment arguments.

BESW

@Lord_Gareth "Many."

LitheOhm

@BESW seconded

BESW

Not most, not all. Many.

Lord_Gareth

4:23 AM

D&D does a great job of /presenting/ alignments as being an objective in-universe force. After all, aligned Outsiders and aligned magic abounds! No, the problem is that whenever WotC wrote about alignment they contradicted themselves.

Which left no objective standard to then refer to.

LitheOhm

@KRyan states in comments and answers all over that the AL system should be ignored entirely

BESW

@Lord_Gareth ...which leads to many people rejecting the idea that it is simply a game mechanic.

LitheOhm

I'm inclined to agree in many cases

Simon Gill

@BESW Bah... it's 4AM, and as fascinating as this conversation is, I really should get some sleep.

BESW

@SimonGill G'night!

Simon Gill

4:24 AM

Night all.

LitheOhm

@SimonGill night

Lord_Gareth

@BESW It's a poorly-designed game mechanic, but monk is a poorly-designed class

BESW

I should be building my NPCs for tonight's game.

Lord_Gareth

They are sadly both still mechanics.

LitheOhm

I'm off to do some reading for Foundations of Business, too :)

BESW

4:24 AM

@Lord_Gareth [sigh] Did I say they aren't?

Lord_Gareth

No, but it means that people arguing that it's not a game mechanic are objectively wrong.

Both of us know that intimately, since ripping it out takes so much effort.

BESW

@Lord_Gareth That doesn't make their emotional investment in it any less real.

Which dictates how such discussions need to be handled in order to be productive.

Lord_Gareth

Perhaps, I suppose.

BESW

And I avoid conversations that serve no function except to upset people and provide platforms for self-serving rhetoric.

Lord_Gareth

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Paizo sold PF as being "Backwards-compatible" as this huge gigantic selling point that they were so proud of, but the PFS zealously bans any and all non-PF content with no back-porting?

BESW

4:39 AM

Only two more monsters to make...

Lord_Gareth

Pour into them all of your malice and will to dominate the free peoples of Middle Earth

BESW

One cultist to rule them all!

Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimabtul...

BESW

4:54 AM

Let's see. Grab attack of a cultist of Tiamat, dragon goddess of greed. Can only be called one thing.

"Mine Now."

Heh. There are a lot of nifty 4e tricks I don't indulge in because it's just too much to keep track of.

At the suggestion of Hobbs, gonna be using this for background music to represent the ritual being conduction: youtube.com/watch?v=Or110h7rk9Q

[*conducted]

KRyan

5:29 AM

@LitheOhm "entirely" is an overstatement. as mechanical artifacts, particularly as mechanical traps, yes. that doesn't mean they are completely useless, as a shorthand for describing characters, factions, and cosmic forces. They should just remain, more or less, the fluff they are.

@BESW heh, I know what that is

LitheOhm

5:44 AM

@KRyan true, I missed that caveat. Sorry about that

Lord_Gareth

7:18 AM

How'd the monsters go, @BESW?

BESW

I finished makin' 'em, and we're going to start the session within half an hour.

The players are putting the touches on their levelups and printing new sheets.

Lord_Gareth

RUN PLAYERS, SHE SECRETLY DESIGNED THEM AS CASTERS FROM 3.5!

Simon Gill

1:54 PM

@Lord_Gareth You know BESW is a he, right?

BESW

2:16 PM

@SimonGill I wasn't gonna say anything. Being mistaken for woman in the Internet is a thing with me, apparently.

...I am curious what leads people to the conclusion, though...

Simon Gill

@BESW I'm a bit curious too.

BESW

I can't remember if I've ever been explicit about my gender here. Probably.

Maybe talking about my high school's seriously skewed gender ratios or something.

@Lord_Gareth Monsters went very well. The multipart dragon was a big hit.

The possession mechanic was met with dubiousness, but it worked well enough.

Simon Gill

@BESW I know you have - during the conversation about a playing getting uncomfortable finding out just how far you are willing to take a scene about picking up a prostitute.

BESW

Ah, right.

Simon Gill

But that was a while ago now (weeks, I think? I don't know, my sense of time is legs-in-the-air dead). Lord Gareth wouldn't know that

BESW

2:24 PM

I got mistaken for a Girl On The Internet a lot in WoW.

And a few other places.

Simon Gill

@BESW That's easier than it should be, especially if you have a female toon.

Righty.... time to mess around with some rice and try to make sushi :) See you in a while.

BESW

Ta!

mxyzplk

7:05 PM

@BESW People figure BESW is some weird variant on BBW

Big Extra Sexy Woman? Big Egg Sucking Woman? The possibilities are endless

LitheOhm

7:46 PM

@mxyzplk lol. Or a spinoff of the BESM - Big Eyes Small Mouth RPG

if I'd have thought of that one though, I'd so be using it.

Simon Gill

@LitheOhm You can change your username whenever you like.

LitheOhm

8:21 PM

ah, didn't know that.

Well, I like this one - second site I've used it for, and it's growing on me

Simon Gill

@LitheOhm It is individual. I can't think of anyone else that might put those two words together.

LitheOhm

8:44 PM

@SimonGill :) I haven't seen it anywhere else. There's a user on here who has a gravatar that has the Ohm symbol in front of a gray slate background. Love it

and the abbreviation is fairly consistent - this site and the other, people referred to me as Lithe. Not a nickname I mind lol

Simon Gill

@LitheOhm I can imagine you don't :P

LitheOhm

@SimonGill hehe

Simon Gill

10:42 PM

This writer has a fantastic turn of phrase... estrogenocidal indeed!

badassoftheweek.com/savic.html

BESW

11:02 PM

[blinkblink]

Simon Gill

@BESW What's up?

BESW

[gazes up chat]

I have no response to that.

Simon Gill

@BESW Probably wise...

BESW

@SimonGill That's a pretty cool story. I must put her in a campaign some day.

Simon Gill

@BESW That site is full of awe-inspiring characters from history and the present day.

doppelgreener

11:21 PM

Is Piercing damage just a regular damage type, or does it in some way bypass a level of AC?

Oblivious Sage

in what system?

doppelgreener

3.5e

Oblivious Sage

in 3.5 it's just a regular damage type

doppelgreener

Ok, thanks

BESW

@ObliviousSage This. Some creatures, like skeletons, take less damage from it.

(Your rapier just rattles around in the ribcage a bit.)

doppelgreener

11:28 PM

Just wondering because of this

In video games, piercing damage is damage which bypasses armor to a certain degree, so I was checking 3.5e firearms didn't target touch AC by being piercing

but that would certainly make daggers quite a bit more formidable

Simon Gill

@JonathanHobbs Exalted has rules for piercing that reduce soak (aka damage reduction)

What's peculiar is that it tends to be maces that get the quality rather than rapiers.

Oblivious Sage

maces tend to be more effective against plate armor than rapiers

Simon Gill

@ObliviousSage True. The rule makes sense for the fact it bypasses the armor by turning you into chunky salsa inside your armor. It's just the weirdness of the redefinition of the word that's interesting.

BESW

Most non-ceremonial maces are piercing.

doppelgreener

ok there.

Simon Gill

11:38 PM

@BESW There are piercing bits on them, yes. But they tend not to be long enough to actually pierce deep through the muslces. The major damage factor of a mace is the kinetic energy.

doppelgreener

a less than 5000x5000 image which doesn't lag my browser out

BESW

Kinetically speaking, the pointy bits are to focus the momentum of the heavy head into a small spot.

LitheOhm

I played a homebrew where creatures/armor had damage reduction based on the three types - pierce, bludgeon, slash. It worked pretty well

Simon Gill

@LitheOhm Slight variant on old school AD&D then? :P There were armor bonuses/penalties depending on type of weapon vs. type of armor (oh god the charts).

@BESW Actually... I don't think it really matters that much. Maces are lethal and good at ignoring armor, however exactly they do it.

►

LitheOhm

@SimonGill lol. Not sure. An example - my armor resisted 6 slashing, 6 piercing but only 3 bludgeoning damage. It was tough but couldn't resist impact well

Simon Gill

11:43 PM

The quality in that clip is awful.. but it gets the point across :)

@LitheOhm I was joking a little :P

LitheOhm

heh. My bad. Still kinda blocky from school atm

BESW

@SimonGill uponatable.com/comic/2003/02/19/it-also-keeps-the-ears-warm

Simon Gill

Isn't it saturday?

LitheOhm

I remember saves from AD&D. There were so many @.@

Simon Gill

@BESW Yep. Get a damn helmet (if you're in a system with any realism whatsoever)

LitheOhm

11:46 PM

@SimonGill yep. Online school week is Sunday to whenever I finish that week. Textbooks didn't get here until Tuesday -_- hoping I'll be done for a v3.5 game tonight

Simon Gill

@LitheOhm Ahhhhhh. I thought you were talking about having to go to classes on the weekend.

LitheOhm

@SimonGill nah. Hopefully I can swing both my work ethic and, well I guess just my work ethic lol... And have classes done by Wednesday or Thursday. Two 'free' days a week would be nice

a little every day sucks. Requirements anyway. I'm all for thinking about stuff everyday, maybe some reading. But not for deadlines lol

Transcript for