swils

But scars are manly! The original suggestion, and my amendments thereupon, pertained only to this first day. Regardless, it is a null point as I have already admitted my error. With everyone so caught up in recalling events from old HoloVids, I fear we will miss that which is happening before our eyes. Come now, surely some of the rest of you have thoughts or opinions about what has transpired thus far? My padawan's poor suggestion and my own mistake in elaborating upon the former? Master Corobb's inquisitive and metagamey nature? How about some of the reactions and replies to the aforementioned, Aayla's haste to throw an accusation out? Master Moudama has thrown around lots of clicks and clacks, but how much of it was useful? Or, perhaps we could look to those who have spoken up, yet neglected to comment on anything that has transpired thus far? Or how about myself again, for laying out names so early on? Silence will not save our Order. Speak your minds!

It is getting to be late midday, I'm sure everyone is asleep out sating their hungers before they commit to the coming trials we face within our temple. But yes, please, speak your minds (and be judged on your follies! ), let's keep things interesting at least until the voting begins!

Ahsoka suggested a no-lynch through unanimous no-vote, and asked for thoughts. I suggested that if we were to go for a no-lynch, we do it through a non-majority tie rather than accruing penalties for tomorrow. I didn't actually suggest we do it; rather, I suggested we vote based on what happened today, as there was plenty of time left. Then Master Secura blew everything out of proportion and accused me of being a Sith. In turn, I countered her points and explained (or at least, tried to do so) how she was mistaken, and her proposed scenario poorly established. Now, I'd expect that you are going to tell me that, by not simply discouraging my padawan's suggestion in its entirety in the first place, I wasn't doing the Order any favors, and I would agree with you. It was a mistake on my part to delve into the matter at all, I realize this. But yes, I stand by my statement that I clarified my words in order to avoid a second accusation, of the nature I mentioned. If Aayla was so quick to jump on me over a misunderstanding, is it so far fetched to believe that she would attempt to stir up more trouble for me, if I had simply shrugged off her initial accusation? My bad, I confused Ahsoka with Aayla. Confusing Clone Wars Jedi. The point stands, however, that you supported Ahsoka's idea of not voting, and you did more than just offer your thoughts. Ah, name-confusion would explain why your second paragraph was a bit difficult to follow.

On the other hand, many others were not the target of her outlandish accusation.

I could have simply blown off Aayla's absurd accusation and told her such, but I chose instead to clarify what I had said so as to clue her in and avoid yet another accusation, one likely under the guise of "It's scummy to dodge the issue (as blown out of proportion as it may be)."

Yet more ill-conceived suspicion, this time from Master Clickityclack. I do not wish to divert any of it onto my Padawan, but I feel I must remind some of you that I was, in fact, only giving my thoughts on her suggestion, not actually making that suggestion in and of itself. I even concluded by saying that I believed we would be better served to wait and cast votes based on the events of the day, as the day was still young, and something of note was bound to happen before it came down to a premeditated TIE. In truth, I may not have said so in so many words, but I did mean to offset my thoughts on her suggestion from the course of action I believed we should follow for the day.

D'oh, you're right, poorly written example. Change the numbers to 11-11-2, with the remaining vote being the supposed investigator, and two others, or whatever combination such that the illustrated point becomes: Whoever votes and tips the scales will likely be held accountable for their actions come tomorrow, either by the betrayed Order or weakened Sith, and it would be very difficult to present the results of a mid-day investigation today without marking yourself to the Sith, as it is.

D'oh, you're right, poorly written example. Change the numbers to 11-11-2, with the remaining vote being the supposed investigator, and two others, or whatever combination such that the illustrated point becomes: Whoever votes and tips the scales will likely be held accountable for their actions come tomorrow, either by the betrayed Order or weakened Sith, and it would be very difficult to present the results of a mid-day investigation today without marking yourself to the Sith, as it is.

Hey now, Thormanil pays special care to keep his unmentionables out of harms way which, fortunately for the more innocent members of the Hall, means that they remain comfortably in his slacks! The rest is just eye-candy, and the other heroes should be thankful for such a treat!

So quick to jump on me, you're lucky I don't cut off your strange little pigtails right here, Aayla, and see whose side you're on. At least that'd get us somewhere. Now, I may be mistaken, and if I am, then I will retract my previous comment. However, I do believe I noted that, if we were to pursue that course of action, we should do so shy of a majority-split, so that, even with a tie, no one would have reached a clear majority-vote. Although, re-reading it now, I am confused by the existence of both a requirement of a majority vote, and simply "the one with the most votes", as the two seem to conflict. In the event that someone stumbles across some important information mid-day, I'm not sure how you would have them bring it up, anyway, without immediately drawing attention to themselves. Additionally, let's assume that we sit at a tie of 12-12-1, and your supposed investigator decides to change their vote at the end, making it 11-13-1. That's a majority, and come tomorrow, if the investigator's judgment was not clouded, then we will have gotten a Sith lynched. If, however, someone were to switch that same vote, but tomorrow we find that we have lynched an innocent member of our Order, then we can start in on that person's reasoning for having switched their vote.

I think we'd be better off drawing a tie, shy of a majority-split. If someone tries to tip the scales at the end of the day, it'll paint a target on their forehead for tomorrow (though the target may be a bit larger to accommodate the canvas that Ki-Adi's head provides!). Plus, the day is young, I'm sure someone will slip up. They always do!

You say that as though you haven't done the same

Ahsoka, you must understand that it is not the Sith that have infiltrated our temple, it is the Sith influence, and it festers from within, with some of our own having turned from The Order. We should strike quickly before they can take any more innocent lives, but... who?

Just wanted to make sure everything was in order, especially considering my slip-up with the challenge at the start, heh. And yeah, it dawned on me earlier today that you are all involved in some other demanding projects. Also, thanks for the heads-up on the ether, not quite sure how I forgot it Not wanting to waste an opportunity to catch Benji off guard, Thormanil quickly prepares to attack from the front row again.

Most of the times that I have seen a throwing weapon used, it is either a) at the start of the fight, or b) when the character is low on health. This might discourage the former, but in the case of the latter, attacking twice also leaves the rogue open to the possibility of death twice, whereas waiting a turn then using the throwing weapon would only expose them to damage once, and half damage, at that. If players have an array of weapons at their disposal, but are able to survive all their fights using only a single weapon per fight, then I would argue that the lack of strategy somewhat falls on the shoulders of the QM, rather than the proposed mechanics. Encounters, especially in small, controlled environments like this, should be tailored to the party's strengths and weaknesses, equipment included. As for mages and gems, I guess that depends on how you perceive the class to work. Do the mages hold the gem infront of them, and channel energy through the gem to produce the elemental effect? Or does the possession of the gem award the mage mastery over that element, such that they can call upon it's power at whim, and do not need to be focusing through the gem itself? It could go either way, though I'd probably suggest that gems be subject to this also.

For the first part, I did make the suggestion in my first post that there be a new artefact(s) or item modification available (though, perhaps not readily available) that would enable you to avoid the delay.

Au contraire, I believe that it increases strategy. You're in a fight against 3 monsters, two of which are resistant to your elemental blade, but beyond that, not a huge threat. The third monster is weak to your blade, and has the potential to wipe the floor with your party if left untended. Do you engage with a weapon that can hit all three, or do you choose to start with your elemental blade and focus on taking out the big baddy first? It's a simplified example, but the idea behind it holds. That depends entirely on the goals of the player wielding it. I believe this, too, would be a strategic choice, perhaps moreso than most others. Do you forfeit your ability to do damage (without waiting a turn to switch) in exchange for the ability to administer ether-free healing? Okay, I'll be honest, I have no idea how you got this from what you quoted.

Then, why not start building up another weapon with a different combination of elements, such that you can enter any fight and, at the start, pick between either blade, as best suits the situation at hand? I didn't consider throwing weapons, I'll admit, but I'm sure there could be an exception for them, the explanation for which being that in the time it takes you to run up and recover it after being thrown, you are able to sheath your current weapon.

I'm (obviously) inclined to disagree. While it's true that newer Heroes won't have the funds to support frequent use of Smelling Salts, I think it's also fair to say that they won't have the funds to support a portable armory, either, and likely won't run into this issue for a while. And I don't see how it would discourage elemental weapons.. at most, I can see it discouraging putting all your eggs into one basket (stacking stats onto a single elemental weapon) so that you don't find yourself SoL when you come across an enemy that is strong against your weapon. For my own part, I don't own an elemental weapon for the purpose of dealing with undead, rather, I love being able to take the reins on a fight against enemies weak to lightning and really lay the hurt on! In my mind, in the first round of a fight, a player would state their actions, and if they wish to use a weapon other than the first one in their inventory, they would say so--this wouldn't consume a turn, as it would be the weapon they first unsheathe for that fight.

As a player, I'd say Artefacts - yes, Weapons - no. But if I put myself into a QM's shoes, I'd say that any switching of equipment should take a turn. Weigh your options beforehand, decide which items and effects will be most beneficial to you across the entirety of your opponents. Equipment selection should be something of a tactical decision. A nice side-effect is that this would encourage more use of haste consumables (blanking on the name) so that you didn't waste a full round, potentially leaving an enemy open to deal a free-hit. Plus, it would allow for a new artefact (or item enhancement, depends on implementation), say, a Quick-draw Sheath, such that weapon swapping no longer consumes a turn (or, in the case of an item modification, swapping *to* the weapon doesn't consume a turn, though swapping from it still does, etc) Hats, shields, axes, tunics, swords, plate armors, daggers, magical jewelry, staves, bows, and lucky undergarments, should all take a turn to switch! edit: Apparently I type slow

I assumed it went through the normal damage calculations, then added a point of earth damage to that total (so that the additional damage wasn't a factor in, say, crit damage calculations or anything).

Thormanil grins as he steps onto the arena floor, gripping his Wyvern's Tailblade and preparing to attack from the front row. Edit: Just in case, "I, Thormanil Nihai (swils), would like to (retroactively) challenge Benji Carvenhall (Flare), to a duel (in the appropriate format)!"

"Aacorpiox" just to be safe, having that "c" in there can really throw off your position! "swils" -> "5wils"

Just as a friendly reminder for all QMs (I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you, B&P ), there is nothing wrong with rewards of gold or 'vendor-trash'. Who could possibly not love gold? Everybody loves gold! Gold enables people to advance their characters (in terms of items and strength, as opposed to character-development) parallel to, or in between, quests. Had I not acquired a shiny pair of axes on my first quest, I would have taken my earnings and had Anwyl sharpen up Thormanil's rusty, dull old greataxe, restoring some of its former head-cleaving glory! With gold, people can barter for those coveted artifacts. Further, gold enables people to load their characters' packs up with consumables, enabling QMs to design more interesting and challenging encounters balanced around the assumption that there will be a gratuitous use of those consumables, something which, to this point, we haven't ever really seen (but really should). If you've played any of the Final Fantasy games, or similar RPGs, you'll know what it's like to use Potions and Ethers every few turns. It's a very successful mechanic, if I do say so myself.