Adult: GUCK Development Forum again

[Bastoche]

If the spell list doesn't change, I guess they could be usable in both scenario which would be a good thing. Although I think we could easily imagine hard focus only spells that influence the mechanic directly. I should go and check the old list first...

 

[Sorn]

Bastoche:
A few hard-focus only spells would certainly be a good idea. Or, maybe even better, spells that are be useable in both soft and hard focus, but with information for both mechanics.

 

[VVrayven]

Just to add something to this little Soft Focus/Hard Focus discussion. First of all, the Soft Focus rules are a sidebar. They are indented to resolve around 6 min to up to an hour of rolls and stuff into a single die roll. Soft Focus does not make use of any of our Carnal Feats (unless they give a FLAT OUT Modifier) nor does it make use of the status conditions (execpt to list that the partners are Fatigues or worse afterwards). Soft Focus does not have very good solid mechanics, that is because it is a quick resolution system. This topic of what spells should be what type sounds a little off to me.

Most of the spells in the old guide would be what we would term "Hard Focus". Arousing someone with a spell has "no effect" in Soft Focus rules. Even making someone peak or climax has no game effect unless you use the Hard Focus rules. Basiclly the way the new guide has turned, is that the base core set of mechanical rules ARE Hard Focus. Soft Focus is used only for a quick encounter and when all the action is "behind closed doors".

Now, I suppose some of spells could have a sub section for what bonuses or penalties (or effect) they have on the single soft focus roll. Good idea, Sorn. And I do agree that soft focus will be used more on the whole, but much of this guide is crippled without the application of the Hard Focus rules.

As for clothing, yes, those things were meant to be additions similar to armor enhancements.

As for "Unfashionable", well really ties, lace, and buttons were considered "in-fashion" back in the day, but regardless, these types of garments that are difficult to get on and off are already covered with the COMPLEX garment add-on.

So the Garment ADD-ON list is (so far):

COMPLEX: No Quickly Don Possible, Double remove and don time, EXPOSE checks DC +5, prowess penalties increased by -2. Cost Modifier: x1 per TYPE

Easy Access: Always considered EXPOSED. Cost Modifier: x1 (+.5 per TYPE)

Seductive: +1 seduce bonus, Cost Modifier: x1 (+.5 per TYPE)

Fashionable: +1 social relations, Cost Modifer: x3

All of them stack as well. So a Sexy, Easy Access, Fashionable Explorer's Outfit would be:
(base 10gp, MODERATE) - (2.0 for sexy), (2.0 for easy access), (3.0 for fashionable)

Use the basic add all multiples in 3e we get an outfit which costs: 10 gp x 7 = 70 gp.

 

[Psyckosama]

VVrayven, I don't think any clothing should ever be "always" anything. For example, look at the Noble/royal clothing of... say... Egyptian, Fedual Japanese, and the aristocratic clothing used by noble/rich Classical Greek and Roman women. For the most part on those three cases it was light, simple, and rather easy 'access'.

The complexity is a cultural/fassion issue. No all nobles are going to be in the nightmarishly complex "buckles and laces" clothing of the 1400-1500s.

Now, I really should get back to work on my Pregency rules, now shouldn't it?

 

[Gez]

I wanted to post this yesterday, but completely forgot. Better late than never, though. Here's a carnal creature.

 

[VVrayven]

I don't think any clothing should ever be "always" anything. For example, look at the Noble/royal clothing of... say... Egyptian, Fedual Japanese, and the aristocratic clothing used by noble/rich Classical Greek and Roman women. For the most part on those three cases it was light, simple, and rather easy 'access'.

I agree with you. The only reason I set that as such is that the outfit packagaes listed are those found in the PHB which are relatively "well-defined". I think they intend the set weight and cost noble clothing package to be just like the 1400-1500s set. However, like I said, I conceed your point and shall remove the "always" descriptor.

We are getting close to needing your pregnacy rules too.

Gez: That's just scary, and it takes a lot to scare me. ::shivers::

 

[Psyckosama]

I agree with you. The only reason I set that as such is that the outfit packagaes listed are those found in the PHB which are relatively "well-defined". I think they intend the set weight and cost noble clothing package to be just like the 1400-1500s set. However, like I said, I conceed your point and shall remove the "always" descriptor.

Okay. I see you're point. I disagree with it, but maybe a footnote is in order. Some clothing is heavy but reletively simple to put on, like geavy robes, but still simple to remove. I think a sample list is in order...

We are getting close to needing your pregnacy rules too.

Good. I want to wait until the sex rules are done with so it doesn't get cut off. I really have no been contributing much because I honestly doubt that I'll ever be using the detailed sex act rules (we generally wing it or roll a couple of dice to get a generalized outcome... no fine detail) but I like to run realistic and somewhat gritty campaigns so functional pregnancy rules are useful to me... I'll post a revised version 'soon'.

 

[Psyckosama]

Here's the rules as they stand right now...

The Base chance of getting pregnant is a DC15 Constitution check with the following modifiers where a natural 1 is always failure to consceve and a 20 is always a suceess. (make the save and the woman is pregnent. Fail and she isn't) This save is made once a month. It is made by the DM.

Modifiers:
Physical:
Age of optimal fertility (in humans, 16-30): +1
Past age of optimal fertility (in humans, about 40-50): -1
Nursing Young: -2

Trying to get pregnent:
Actively trying to get pregnant: +2
Fertility Drugs: +2 to +4
Fertility magic: CL/2+1

Limited Sexual Activity:
One week out of the month: -2
Two Weeks: -1
Once: -4

Racial Modifiers:
Very Low Fertility race: -4(IE: Elf)
Low Fertility Race: -2 (IE: Dwarf)
Moderate Fertility Race: 0 (IE: Humans)
High Ferlility race: +2 (IE: Orcs)

Paternal Modifiers:
Impotent Mate: -1
Very Low Potency race: -2
Low Potency Race: -1
Moderate Potency Race: 0
High Potency race: +1

Contraceptives:
Rhythm Method: -3
"The Pill" (normal): -4
Magic (normal): - (CL/2 + 1)
Barrier: -5

High quality contraception, such as careful and regular casting of contraceptive magic, magic items, close adherence to the pill’s schedule, or other reliable methods only seceded on a natural 20

Abstinence and Sterilization (Magical or Otherwise) negates the need to roll, baring divine interference.

If the pregency is sucessful, conferm with a Con check on a d20 adding only physical and racial modifiers.

Any ideas?... and we definatly need rules FOR being pregnant, and maybe some rules and equipment for how to handle children and dependents.

 

[Vaxalon]

If she always becomes pregnant on a 20, then your average couple is going to have a child every year.

 

[Psyckosama]

If she always becomes pregnant on a 20, then your average couple is going to have a child every year.

not really... Going by always on a roll of 20, it's a 5% chance not counting the confermation roll. Now, as for the woman getting pregnant once every year or two (very VERY possible with the rules), just keep in mind pregnant women can't get pregnant, and then consider how large famlies were prior to modern birth control... many women would have seven or eight, maybe more children.

Very large famlies with many children were the norm for a very long time. Many of those children never would reach adulthood, so you needed to have many.

With magic replacing modern medicine (clerics with enough class levels can cover much of what modern medicine can, and in some parts, more) and higher child survival rates, I see contreceptive charms being popular... (and probelly all but massproduced)