Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VVrayven" data-source="post: 688591" data-attributes="member: 9950">I wasn't trying to. It's just the way I talk. Sorry If I mislead you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />When we made skills like heavenly exp, and the like, the idea wasn't to apply them to NC situations. I put in the Unwilling status specifically because I wanted the DMs to be apply to make NC as real or unreal as they wished. That's why the resistance bonus is variable.I mean, looking through core d20, you can look at spells like charm person and domination and the like and see very wicked uses for them in a sexual context. People will always be able to bend stuff around. I intended Heavenly Exp to be just the last step on ladder, useful for the rouge who really did something wonderful for the princess last night.I've removed the two "sex tricks" that seemed to encourage this type of thing.Would it not be safe to assume that if the Unwilling bonus was set at 50 or even 100 (even 200) that not even a person with 30 ranks in Prowess wouldn't be able to do much? Perhaps the definition in the Unwilling status for that variable modifier needs to be clearer?Edit: Ah! I see that little bit I put in there about the 1-20+ has been changed. It just got lost in the rewrite I'm sure. Simple mistake. We'll just at a sentence like: "I bonus from 1 to 20 (or as high as 100 or 200 for realistic settings)". Does that work?And if you have any ideas just post your rules modifications. We like input from all people. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Thanks for bringing this issue to the forefront, as I knew we would have to discuss it sooner or later.Does anyone else that has been here longer have any ideas on this? Has it been discussed before? I'm feeling awfully like the newbie butting her head in again... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Gez: Insatiable Lover, Psychic Link 1 & Psychic Link 2, Versatile Lover. I like all of those. I'll add them to my growing list. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As for Lover Focus, it would be tough to add this 'Sex Trick' to a Carnal Art's package? Or maybe not? Any ideas?</blockquote>

Verification