Adult: GUCK Development Forum again
- Thread starter Death By Surfeit
- Start date
Death By Surfeit
First Post
Well, glad to see that the forum is such a whirlwind of creative activity. There is plenty still to be done, and plenty that the meagrest and most casual reader can achieve. Lurkers, we need you!
Of particular pertinence, although the core mechanics are resolved with a few niggling points outstanding (thanks be to VVrayven's contributions for such), is the kinks system, and wider affairs, namely:
Carnal/Sensual/Whatever spellcasting. The Guide warranted and still deserves a bevy of new spells to accomodate the new rules sets. Should these all be given to spellcasters freely (as in the d20 conversion)? Are we to introduce classes with the specific ability to cast sensual spells (see DbS conversion), with some still available to others? What do people think?
Source Topics. Although the time to work through them is not yet at hand, we would want to know what to cover. Reflecting the more serious nature of the guide than previous editions, I would recommend pregnancy, STDs, racial sexualities (perhaps somewhat condensed or organised) and essays on the nature of sexuality (and the impact of greater gender equality) in the D&D world.
As ever, whatever new spells, monsters, feats, mechanics or whatever that you have are gladly welcomed. It is these nuggets that enliven the guide and keep things fresh.
Hear from you all soon,
DbS
PS. Has anyone heard from Gez? I'm sorry about the disagreement relating to Carnal Arts, but it would be a shame to miss out on his input. Sorn? Has anyone read Kolvar's cryptic and unannounced thread, also on this forum?
Of particular pertinence, although the core mechanics are resolved with a few niggling points outstanding (thanks be to VVrayven's contributions for such), is the kinks system, and wider affairs, namely:
Carnal/Sensual/Whatever spellcasting. The Guide warranted and still deserves a bevy of new spells to accomodate the new rules sets. Should these all be given to spellcasters freely (as in the d20 conversion)? Are we to introduce classes with the specific ability to cast sensual spells (see DbS conversion), with some still available to others? What do people think?
Source Topics. Although the time to work through them is not yet at hand, we would want to know what to cover. Reflecting the more serious nature of the guide than previous editions, I would recommend pregnancy, STDs, racial sexualities (perhaps somewhat condensed or organised) and essays on the nature of sexuality (and the impact of greater gender equality) in the D&D world.
As ever, whatever new spells, monsters, feats, mechanics or whatever that you have are gladly welcomed. It is these nuggets that enliven the guide and keep things fresh.
Hear from you all soon,
DbS
PS. Has anyone heard from Gez? I'm sorry about the disagreement relating to Carnal Arts, but it would be a shame to miss out on his input. Sorn? Has anyone read Kolvar's cryptic and unannounced thread, also on this forum?
VVrayven
First Post
Heya Guys! (what's Wotcher mean?)
"From what I gather, most satisfaction in sodomy is to the penetrator hence receiving is the only proficiency, as it is used by the recipient against the penetrator.We could allow a penetration prof, as satisfaction is possible, it is difficult (cue penalties)."
Works for me. That concurs with my experience and those I've talked to. I only brought it up because I know we're being strict and I had heard rumors.
"Erm... ahh... I’ll get back to you on this one."
You better.
<giggle>
"You’ve somewhat omitted any calculations featuring satisfaction for men. Whilst they cannot sustain quite so many Climaxed states, their DC is significantly lower, hence each orgasm gives more satisfaction tha a woman, given identical rolls. I (roughly) assume this works out to be pretty much on a level with women."
You are correct, I did forget. JAVA Girl is absent minded sometimes... However, I still maintain that an average encounter is still only going to have one or two male climaxs and as is, the DC difference will account for a +1 gratification difference per climax overall... That's fine when it's low level, but at higher levels it becomes a signifigant difference. However, higher level prowess people are likely to be more experienced and thus try for more male climaxes. In the end I guess it's fine. It just takes a LONG time to get a male to climb the chart because of all those 10 minute waits.
"My personal opinion on the matter is that it is fine"
Okay. With the Arts I don't think it is much of a problem either.
"Hmmm... +2. And the system, may I add, is absolutely fantastic. I couldn’t have managed anything near as good myself."
<blush> Thanks.
"To address your other point, we will, of course, require a little good sense where DMs are concerned Caress (breasts) will have little effect on a male partner, if any."
Okay. Just wanted to point it out.
"I’d suggest that most proficiencies be impossible whilst in clothing. Caressing would be possible but with a penalty of -2 to -6 based on thickness of clothing (impossible on opponents wearing armour). Some rules for time spent removing clothing, or unbuckling essential areas, would be appreciated from the team at large. Perhaps 3e armour style: Don, Remove, Remove Hastily ()."
Fine Fine, you talked me in to it. Ask and you shall recieve!
Clothing
Clothing Set-------------WGT----COST----TYPE------NOTES
Artisan’s Outfit---------4 lb.--1 gp----LIGHT-----
Cleric’s Vestments-------6 lb.--5 gp----MODERATE--
Cold Weather Outfit------7 lb.--8 gp----HEAVY-----
Courtier’s Outfit--------6 lb.--30 gp---MODERATE--USUALLY COMPLEX
Entertainer’s Outfit-----4 lb.--3 gp----LIGHT-----
Explorer’s Outfit--------8 lb.--10 gp---MODERATE--
Monk’s Outfit------------2 lb.--5 gp----LIGHT-----
Noble’s Outfit-----------10 lb.-75 gp---HEAVY-----USUALLY COMPLEX
Peasant’s Outfit---------2 lb.--1 sp----LIGHT-----
Royal Outfit-------------15 lb.-200 gp--HEAVY-----USUALLY COMPLEX
Scholar’s Outfit---------6 lb.--5 gp----LIGHT-----
Traveler’s Outfit--------5 lb.--1 gp----MODERATE--
Harlot's Outfit----------4 lb.--6 gp----LIGHT-----USUALLY EASY ACCESS
Courtesan’s Outfit-------5 lb.--60 gp---MODERATE--
Concubine's Outfit-------2 lb.--* gp----LACE------
Desert Outfit------------3 lb.--6 gp----LIGHT-----
Bodysuit, Black----------1 lb.--30 gp---LIGHT-----
Eleborate Jewelry--------1 lb.--* gp--------------
Undergarments------------1 lb.--* gp----LACE------
*Cost is greatly variable
TYPE------DON-----HASTY------REMOVE----Rend----Rip DC---Penalty--Expose
LACE------2 rnd---1 rnd------1 rnd-----1 hp-----10-------(-2)-----0
LIGHT-----1 min---5 rnd------5 rnd-----4 hp-----20-------(-4)-----5
MODERATE--2 min---1 min------1 min-----8 hp-----30-------(-8)-----10
HEAVY-----4 min---2 min------2 min-----15 hp----40-------(**)-----15
Clothing that is Hastily donned might give a -1 to diplomacy and the like.
Remove times assume you are working quickly and not destroying the garment. If you have help, cut the time in half. Removing clothing is a full-round action.
It is possible to cut off clothing, this requires a standard action and must be done delicately (some kind of check) or you risk hurting the wearer. Each garment has hp equal, this includes ALL parts of the garment. Note that each clothing type above assumes that the one below it exists, thus, MODERATE clothing assumes you have a LIGHT and LACE on underneath, thus if 4 hp of MODERATE were destroyed, the person would now be wearing LIGHT (and LACE). It is also possible to completly rip off clothing all together. The RIP DC is a STR check against the listed DC, if successful, the person is now nude. (Optionally, for every DC 10 you make, you could rip down to the next layer, thus a DC 30 against HEAVY could reduce them to LACE...)
Any Sexual Prof is possible through LACE all at a -2 penalty. If the DM rules the LACE to be totally unabtrusive, such as a intercourse with the lady in nothing but a shift, the penalty can be reduced to a -1 or even 0.
Prowess checks can be made through LIGHT and MODERATE clothing, but only at the listed penalty and only those that don't involve oral or penetration. Prowess checks through HEAVY clothing types is impossible without special circumstances.
Exposing - It is possible to expose vital parts of the body so that prowess checks can be made with more freedom. By making a DEX check a single part of the body can be made accessible (these are usually the genitals, but the DM could rule otherwise). Exposing allows penetration and oral profs to be used, and halves the prowess penalty. If HEAVY clothing is exposed, the penalty is a -8.
Special Types of Clothing:
COMPLEX - Complex clothing has lots of strings, lace, ties, and is generally a pain to get into and out of. Complex clothing requires doubles all DONNING and REMOVING times and cannot ever be DONNED HASTILY. All EXPOSE checks have their DCs raised by 5 in complex clothing and the prowess penalties are increased by -2.
EASY ACCESS - These clothes are meant to allow people to gain sexual access to them. They are always considered EXPOSED, although the garmet DOES cover the vital areas in some fashion.
This needs serious fleshing out, but what do you think?
Well, that's about it for right now. I might post a little bit later. I've still got those two sexual arts that are still on the drawing board.... <sigh> I'll get them done sometime.
I can't wait to see your KINKS section DbS. I haven't heard from Gez in a while either... 
But Lily posted a little while ago.
Take care all. Wrayven out for now...
"From what I gather, most satisfaction in sodomy is to the penetrator hence receiving is the only proficiency, as it is used by the recipient against the penetrator.We could allow a penetration prof, as satisfaction is possible, it is difficult (cue penalties)."
Works for me. That concurs with my experience and those I've talked to. I only brought it up because I know we're being strict and I had heard rumors.
"Erm... ahh... I’ll get back to you on this one."
You better.
<giggle>"You’ve somewhat omitted any calculations featuring satisfaction for men. Whilst they cannot sustain quite so many Climaxed states, their DC is significantly lower, hence each orgasm gives more satisfaction tha a woman, given identical rolls. I (roughly) assume this works out to be pretty much on a level with women."
You are correct, I did forget. JAVA Girl is absent minded sometimes... However, I still maintain that an average encounter is still only going to have one or two male climaxs and as is, the DC difference will account for a +1 gratification difference per climax overall... That's fine when it's low level, but at higher levels it becomes a signifigant difference. However, higher level prowess people are likely to be more experienced and thus try for more male climaxes. In the end I guess it's fine. It just takes a LONG time to get a male to climb the chart because of all those 10 minute waits.
"My personal opinion on the matter is that it is fine"
Okay. With the Arts I don't think it is much of a problem either.
"Hmmm... +2. And the system, may I add, is absolutely fantastic. I couldn’t have managed anything near as good myself."
<blush> Thanks.
"To address your other point, we will, of course, require a little good sense where DMs are concerned Caress (breasts) will have little effect on a male partner, if any."
Okay. Just wanted to point it out.
"I’d suggest that most proficiencies be impossible whilst in clothing. Caressing would be possible but with a penalty of -2 to -6 based on thickness of clothing (impossible on opponents wearing armour). Some rules for time spent removing clothing, or unbuckling essential areas, would be appreciated from the team at large. Perhaps 3e armour style: Don, Remove, Remove Hastily ()."
Fine Fine, you talked me in to it. Ask and you shall recieve!
Clothing
Clothing Set-------------WGT----COST----TYPE------NOTES
Artisan’s Outfit---------4 lb.--1 gp----LIGHT-----
Cleric’s Vestments-------6 lb.--5 gp----MODERATE--
Cold Weather Outfit------7 lb.--8 gp----HEAVY-----
Courtier’s Outfit--------6 lb.--30 gp---MODERATE--USUALLY COMPLEX
Entertainer’s Outfit-----4 lb.--3 gp----LIGHT-----
Explorer’s Outfit--------8 lb.--10 gp---MODERATE--
Monk’s Outfit------------2 lb.--5 gp----LIGHT-----
Noble’s Outfit-----------10 lb.-75 gp---HEAVY-----USUALLY COMPLEX
Peasant’s Outfit---------2 lb.--1 sp----LIGHT-----
Royal Outfit-------------15 lb.-200 gp--HEAVY-----USUALLY COMPLEX
Scholar’s Outfit---------6 lb.--5 gp----LIGHT-----
Traveler’s Outfit--------5 lb.--1 gp----MODERATE--
Harlot's Outfit----------4 lb.--6 gp----LIGHT-----USUALLY EASY ACCESS
Courtesan’s Outfit-------5 lb.--60 gp---MODERATE--
Concubine's Outfit-------2 lb.--* gp----LACE------
Desert Outfit------------3 lb.--6 gp----LIGHT-----
Bodysuit, Black----------1 lb.--30 gp---LIGHT-----
Eleborate Jewelry--------1 lb.--* gp--------------
Undergarments------------1 lb.--* gp----LACE------
*Cost is greatly variable
TYPE------DON-----HASTY------REMOVE----Rend----Rip DC---Penalty--Expose
LACE------2 rnd---1 rnd------1 rnd-----1 hp-----10-------(-2)-----0
LIGHT-----1 min---5 rnd------5 rnd-----4 hp-----20-------(-4)-----5
MODERATE--2 min---1 min------1 min-----8 hp-----30-------(-8)-----10
HEAVY-----4 min---2 min------2 min-----15 hp----40-------(**)-----15
Clothing that is Hastily donned might give a -1 to diplomacy and the like.
Remove times assume you are working quickly and not destroying the garment. If you have help, cut the time in half. Removing clothing is a full-round action.
It is possible to cut off clothing, this requires a standard action and must be done delicately (some kind of check) or you risk hurting the wearer. Each garment has hp equal, this includes ALL parts of the garment. Note that each clothing type above assumes that the one below it exists, thus, MODERATE clothing assumes you have a LIGHT and LACE on underneath, thus if 4 hp of MODERATE were destroyed, the person would now be wearing LIGHT (and LACE). It is also possible to completly rip off clothing all together. The RIP DC is a STR check against the listed DC, if successful, the person is now nude. (Optionally, for every DC 10 you make, you could rip down to the next layer, thus a DC 30 against HEAVY could reduce them to LACE...)
Any Sexual Prof is possible through LACE all at a -2 penalty. If the DM rules the LACE to be totally unabtrusive, such as a intercourse with the lady in nothing but a shift, the penalty can be reduced to a -1 or even 0.
Prowess checks can be made through LIGHT and MODERATE clothing, but only at the listed penalty and only those that don't involve oral or penetration. Prowess checks through HEAVY clothing types is impossible without special circumstances.
Exposing - It is possible to expose vital parts of the body so that prowess checks can be made with more freedom. By making a DEX check a single part of the body can be made accessible (these are usually the genitals, but the DM could rule otherwise). Exposing allows penetration and oral profs to be used, and halves the prowess penalty. If HEAVY clothing is exposed, the penalty is a -8.
Special Types of Clothing:
COMPLEX - Complex clothing has lots of strings, lace, ties, and is generally a pain to get into and out of. Complex clothing requires doubles all DONNING and REMOVING times and cannot ever be DONNED HASTILY. All EXPOSE checks have their DCs raised by 5 in complex clothing and the prowess penalties are increased by -2.
EASY ACCESS - These clothes are meant to allow people to gain sexual access to them. They are always considered EXPOSED, although the garmet DOES cover the vital areas in some fashion.
This needs serious fleshing out, but what do you think?
Well, that's about it for right now. I might post a little bit later.
I've still got those two sexual arts that are still on the drawing board.... <sigh> I'll get them done sometime.I can't wait to see your KINKS section DbS.
I haven't heard from Gez in a while either... But Lily posted a little while ago. Take care all. Wrayven out for now...
Last edited:
Still here. Worked has crept up to me again and made a vicious sneak attack.
Anyway... re: Kolvar's thread... look at the date. That's my guess. If that is not the case, could someone check up on him and make sure he's alright?
Spells:
I think we should just add them to the existing spell lists. I don't really care for custom spell lists for PrC's. The nice thing about d20 is its modular nature. If I want to, I can use spells from all kinds of sources. However, quite a few times Spell X would make a lot of sense for Class Y's custom spell list, but unfortunately the two publishers don't know about each other's spells/classes. So, you have to go through the spells with a fine-toothed comb and hope your GM let's you add Spell X to your list.
IMO, PrC's that grant spells should only be accesible for people who can already cast (and they should get a +1 caster level at regular intervals instead of a custom progression).
If we end up with PrC's that should be better with certain spells, we can give out a free Spell Focus feat in the appropriate school or simply give the class a bonus with certain spell subtypes.
Source Topics:
Your suggestions all sound good. Maybe go light on the essays... things like that can derail fairly easy into something dry or controversial.
Anyway... re: Kolvar's thread... look at the date. That's my guess. If that is not the case, could someone check up on him and make sure he's alright?
Spells:
I think we should just add them to the existing spell lists. I don't really care for custom spell lists for PrC's. The nice thing about d20 is its modular nature. If I want to, I can use spells from all kinds of sources. However, quite a few times Spell X would make a lot of sense for Class Y's custom spell list, but unfortunately the two publishers don't know about each other's spells/classes. So, you have to go through the spells with a fine-toothed comb and hope your GM let's you add Spell X to your list.
IMO, PrC's that grant spells should only be accesible for people who can already cast (and they should get a +1 caster level at regular intervals instead of a custom progression).
If we end up with PrC's that should be better with certain spells, we can give out a free Spell Focus feat in the appropriate school or simply give the class a bonus with certain spell subtypes.
Source Topics:
Your suggestions all sound good. Maybe go light on the essays... things like that can derail fairly easy into something dry or controversial.
About spells
A priori, I think spells should be viewed as material for hard focus rules. Therefore I would be more inclined to include then as part of prestige classes spells list and/or new classes spell lists and/or as a new school/domain acquirable via feats and/or character creation.
For example, we could create an alternate soreceror that focus on sensual spells. We would have to include normal spells on the spell list as well to make that class "adventurable" in a "standard D&D" adventure sense.
Another example: A cleric could choose a sex domain to access sensual spells and wizards could add sensual spells in their spellbooks from a ninth school and sorceror could choose from the same spell list as wizards.
Or the new school could be accessable by spending a feat. Maybe this could work like a specialist school for arcane spells and would require the character to drop another school.
Bards could access some sensual spells too.
Among the other spellcasting classes, only paladin could acquire "anti"-sex spells.
Just some random suggestions...
A priori, I think spells should be viewed as material for hard focus rules. Therefore I would be more inclined to include then as part of prestige classes spells list and/or new classes spell lists and/or as a new school/domain acquirable via feats and/or character creation.
For example, we could create an alternate soreceror that focus on sensual spells. We would have to include normal spells on the spell list as well to make that class "adventurable" in a "standard D&D" adventure sense.
Another example: A cleric could choose a sex domain to access sensual spells and wizards could add sensual spells in their spellbooks from a ninth school and sorceror could choose from the same spell list as wizards.
Or the new school could be accessable by spending a feat. Maybe this could work like a specialist school for arcane spells and would require the character to drop another school.
Bards could access some sensual spells too.
Among the other spellcasting classes, only paladin could acquire "anti"-sex spells.
Just some random suggestions...
VVrayven:
Great job. I really like the Outfit rules. However, why aren't the Courtesan and Concubine outfits easily accessible like the Harlot's outfit? Granted, half the fun is taking stuff off, but still.
Bastoche:
I have to disagree. Apart from what I said in my earlier post, spells shouldn't be hard focus. Some of them will surely fall into that category, but the majority will be general purpose.
New cleric domains are not a problem, but adding new schools of magic is a major headache. The effects of any of our spells should easily be classified into the existing schools. Adding a [Sensual] subtype would be the better way to go.
Why would only the Paladin get "anti-sex" spells? A Wizard or Sorcerer or Cleric could just as easily have a grudge against sex or be a militant abstinent. There is nothing in any book I have seen so far that states that Paladins have to be celibate or can't enjoy sex. Granted, I'd seriously raise an eyebrow at a Paladin who cheats on his spouse or sleeps with a whole town, but in general, they are just like everybody else in the bedroom.
The other overarcing factor for me here is that we've been working hard on this for quite some time now. If we restrict sexual magic to the degree that you are proposing, only very few people will ever use the spells. Not everybody wants to take a sexual prestige class or spend a feat just to cast a handful of sensual spells.
IMO, for most people, one of the biggest drawing points of the book will be the spells. Not all groups will use the Sexual Prowess rules or STD's or pregnancy rules. Spells are the easiest to drop into any running campaign, since you can pick and choose. Taking only part of the Sexual Prowess rules will take some serious tweaking, but picking a spell or two won't take any effort at all. Hence, if you restrict the spells, a lot of people will download the book and say "That's nice, but way too involved for my taste." and then shelf it away. I think that with the amount of time and effort spent on this, we should make it useable as possible.
Great job. I really like the Outfit rules. However, why aren't the Courtesan and Concubine outfits easily accessible like the Harlot's outfit? Granted, half the fun is taking stuff off, but still.
Bastoche:
I have to disagree. Apart from what I said in my earlier post, spells shouldn't be hard focus. Some of them will surely fall into that category, but the majority will be general purpose.
New cleric domains are not a problem, but adding new schools of magic is a major headache. The effects of any of our spells should easily be classified into the existing schools. Adding a [Sensual] subtype would be the better way to go.
Why would only the Paladin get "anti-sex" spells? A Wizard or Sorcerer or Cleric could just as easily have a grudge against sex or be a militant abstinent. There is nothing in any book I have seen so far that states that Paladins have to be celibate or can't enjoy sex. Granted, I'd seriously raise an eyebrow at a Paladin who cheats on his spouse or sleeps with a whole town, but in general, they are just like everybody else in the bedroom.
The other overarcing factor for me here is that we've been working hard on this for quite some time now. If we restrict sexual magic to the degree that you are proposing, only very few people will ever use the spells. Not everybody wants to take a sexual prestige class or spend a feat just to cast a handful of sensual spells.
IMO, for most people, one of the biggest drawing points of the book will be the spells. Not all groups will use the Sexual Prowess rules or STD's or pregnancy rules. Spells are the easiest to drop into any running campaign, since you can pick and choose. Taking only part of the Sexual Prowess rules will take some serious tweaking, but picking a spell or two won't take any effort at all. Hence, if you restrict the spells, a lot of people will download the book and say "That's nice, but way too involved for my taste." and then shelf it away. I think that with the amount of time and effort spent on this, we should make it useable as possible.
I forgot to mention that there could be one soft focus list and one hard focus list.
But still, most spells if not all spells in the player's handbook has direction conscequences on combat mechanics. Why should it be any other way for the sex spells.
My point is that most sensual spells will directly affect the hard focus rules mechanics. From that point of view, they would be better suited for a hard focus campaign. I think soft focus spells are already covered by new uses of old spells. I could think of transmutation spells and enchantment spells for instance.
I conceed your point for both paladins and new arcane spell list. I was thinking about it at the same time I wrote my previous post but kept it there just for ideas.
I personnaly would not be tempted to use sensual spells in a soft focus campaign. And I also think that hard focus spells would most probably override any soft focus spells.
I'm not quite sure how spells should be thought of for GUCK, but I think they're better suited for hard focus. At least, that's what I would do with them anyway. I would not be tempted to play a hard focus game where sex is not the main theme, therefore sensual prestige class would rather be the goal of character development, somehow. There wouldn't be as many fights in such a campaign as there would be sex intercourse between the characters and the NPCs.
Am I wrong when I assume that hard focus rules are intended for a highly sex themed campaign or is it just a more detailed way to rule a sideline?
But still, most spells if not all spells in the player's handbook has direction conscequences on combat mechanics. Why should it be any other way for the sex spells.
My point is that most sensual spells will directly affect the hard focus rules mechanics. From that point of view, they would be better suited for a hard focus campaign. I think soft focus spells are already covered by new uses of old spells. I could think of transmutation spells and enchantment spells for instance.
I conceed your point for both paladins and new arcane spell list. I was thinking about it at the same time I wrote my previous post but kept it there just for ideas.
I personnaly would not be tempted to use sensual spells in a soft focus campaign. And I also think that hard focus spells would most probably override any soft focus spells.
I'm not quite sure how spells should be thought of for GUCK, but I think they're better suited for hard focus. At least, that's what I would do with them anyway. I would not be tempted to play a hard focus game where sex is not the main theme, therefore sensual prestige class would rather be the goal of character development, somehow. There wouldn't be as many fights in such a campaign as there would be sex intercourse between the characters and the NPCs.
Am I wrong when I assume that hard focus rules are intended for a highly sex themed campaign or is it just a more detailed way to rule a sideline?
VVrayven said:
How about:
SEDUCTIVE - Those clothes are ment to enhance sex appeal, providing a +1 equipment synergy bonus for seduction rules. A mastercraft version will enhance this bonus further to +2. Note that in certain cases, such clothing might cause a penelty in social reactions (such as in a church).
FASHIONABLE - Those clothes are the latest fashion trend and will provide +1 equipment synergy bonus to social reactions in the appropriate circumstances.
Kolvar:
Actually, I just took the Obi-Wan reference as that... a Star Wars inspired sig. I was a little surprised to see a German sig on a predominantly English-speaking board though. The only reason I realized it was a prank was the fact that I had just read the ENWorld news page. Nobody at home or in the office pulled any pranks on me this year, so if it hadn't been for ENWorld, I would have completely missed it.
Bastoche:
You raise an interesting question. How exactly do we define and cover hard-focus? Going with my earlier comments, I think that the soft-focus rules will be more widely used.
In any case, I am not so sure that there will all that many spells that will only work in a hard-focus game.
Looking at the current list, most of them fall into the following categories:
a) Pregnancy-related spells
b) Changing target's sexual state (this includes things like arousal, sexual orientation, etc as well as detecting or protecting against said items)
c) Sexual Utility spells (there aren't actually all that many, but "Slap" and some of the conjuration spells like "Sex Toy" come to mind).
Obviously, anything related to pregnancy is applicable in both soft-focus and hard-focus games. The utility spells from category C are similar and don't affect the core mechanics all that much (although certain spells might provide bonuses.. like the abovementioned "Sex Toy). Still, this shouldn't make a difference when it comes to hard or soft focus. Category B spells don't seem to overly rely on the core mechanics as of right now. Most of them are used to prepare a target for sex, be it divining their preferences or raising them to a higher arousal state right off the bat. The remainder are either protection spells (be it arousal or STD's) or run-of-the-mill general purpose spells (albeit with a sexual twist).
I have picked a quite a few spells for my characters, and our game would definitely be classified as soft-focus. Sex scenes are usually a fade-to-black situation, something which will hopefully change soon now that we have great mechanics
Asra:
I like those. One suggestion though: Instead of assigning them to the outfits on the list, how about treating them in a similar fashion as the armor add-ons (like spikes)? This way, someone could buy a "fashionable" Courtier's outfit, or a "seductive" Peasant's outfit.
Fashionable should have a x1.5-x3 price multiplier (maybe even more).
Not sure on Seductive, but a x1.5-x2 doesn't sound too unreasonable.
While we are at it, we could also add the other ends of the spectrum... "Unfashionable" for those behind the times and "Tight Laced/Buttoned Up" for the prudes.
Actually, I just took the Obi-Wan reference as that... a Star Wars inspired sig. I was a little surprised to see a German sig on a predominantly English-speaking board though. The only reason I realized it was a prank was the fact that I had just read the ENWorld news page. Nobody at home or in the office pulled any pranks on me this year, so if it hadn't been for ENWorld, I would have completely missed it.
Bastoche:
You raise an interesting question. How exactly do we define and cover hard-focus? Going with my earlier comments, I think that the soft-focus rules will be more widely used.
In any case, I am not so sure that there will all that many spells that will only work in a hard-focus game.
Looking at the current list, most of them fall into the following categories:
a) Pregnancy-related spells
b) Changing target's sexual state (this includes things like arousal, sexual orientation, etc as well as detecting or protecting against said items)
c) Sexual Utility spells (there aren't actually all that many, but "Slap" and some of the conjuration spells like "Sex Toy" come to mind).
Obviously, anything related to pregnancy is applicable in both soft-focus and hard-focus games. The utility spells from category C are similar and don't affect the core mechanics all that much (although certain spells might provide bonuses.. like the abovementioned "Sex Toy). Still, this shouldn't make a difference when it comes to hard or soft focus. Category B spells don't seem to overly rely on the core mechanics as of right now. Most of them are used to prepare a target for sex, be it divining their preferences or raising them to a higher arousal state right off the bat. The remainder are either protection spells (be it arousal or STD's) or run-of-the-mill general purpose spells (albeit with a sexual twist).
I have picked a quite a few spells for my characters, and our game would definitely be classified as soft-focus. Sex scenes are usually a fade-to-black situation, something which will hopefully change soon now that we have great mechanics
Asra:
I like those. One suggestion though: Instead of assigning them to the outfits on the list, how about treating them in a similar fashion as the armor add-ons (like spikes)? This way, someone could buy a "fashionable" Courtier's outfit, or a "seductive" Peasant's outfit.
Fashionable should have a x1.5-x3 price multiplier (maybe even more).
Not sure on Seductive, but a x1.5-x2 doesn't sound too unreasonable.
While we are at it, we could also add the other ends of the spectrum... "Unfashionable" for those behind the times and "Tight Laced/Buttoned Up" for the prudes.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
