Information
Welcome to the AGM motions page. For the Gory details on how the AGM works, see: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=155
Assume the following: The AGM will be both long and painful, the sooner it can be gotten out of the way the better.
AGM Motions: For the good of all of us, it is suggested that you write your motion on this page, at which point members of the society with opinions will surely write them here. It is very rude to remove peoples
opinions on a motion, even if they have been accounted for. A given motion may go through several rounds of revisions to tighten wording or improve it or make it more agreeable to people. If it is starting to
get long, don't be afraid to move all the discussion to a separate page and link to it, keep all the old comments on V1 of motion and totally rewrite up a V2 of motion.
A motion must be emailed to the Exec before a deadline whgich will be announced soon. Putting it up here does not make it happen! A motion must have a proposer and a seconder (someone else who is willing to attach their name to it)
Remember the AGM is LONG! A goal is to keep debate to a minimum. Therefore a good motion is very specific. E.g. A bad motion is "The warrior melee skill is too powerful and should be nerfed." This would produce
20 different arguments at the AGM as to how. A better working is "The melee skill is is too powerful and should be replaced with the following ... (setting out your new melee skill)". This turns the motion into
a single argument: "yes or no".
Please remember to thread and sign your comments, it makes discussion so much easier.
Past proposals
For reference, please note that "put single through earlier in streetfighter" failed at the last AGM. Resubmitting the same proposal is thus contraindicated. --Tea
- For full details of which motions passed and failed at the last 3 AGM's see here on the website: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=41&Itemid=242
Model motion to copy and paste
Insert motion title here
- Proposed by: Name of proposer
- Seconded by: Name of seconder
Body of motion, phrased as a yes/no statement.
Explanation of reasoning
Comments
First Comment
- Indent your comments on which thread they are using multiple : (and reformat the comment block as necessary) and make sure you sign them --Drac
Proposals
Permit thrusting attacks with collapsible-tip polearms
- Proposed by: Tea
- Seconded by: Drac
This motion is to permit collapsible tip polearms to be used for thrusting attacks, subject to the normal rules requiring two-handed use and polearm competency checks. Individual fighters will be required
to be certain they are wielding a collapsible-tip weapon before making any thrusting attacks.
Reasoning: With Odyssey and Empire, among other games, more and more of the society now own collapsible tip polearms. These weapons are safe, effective, and tactically interesting when used to thrust. By
not allowing them to be used one-handed, we avoid the potentially dominant fighting style of long spear + big shield, and by only permitting thrust-safe polearms for thrusting we avoid the option of
buying a very short 'javelin' and using it as a sword to stab with. Tea is also volunteering to provide the armoury with a collapsible tip spear physrep, so we'll have at least one available in order that
new players aren't shut out from using them. Before the AGM, Empire 1 will have happened, which is permitting a mix of both stabsafe and non-stabsafe polearms to be used on the same field in battles, and
Tea intends to withdraw this motion in the event that such a mix proves to be a safety catastrophe.
Comments
I am being a horrible person and starting the AGM debate, although I hope this one shouldn't be too controversial. --Tea
- I err on the side of this is a safety nightmare as it is very easy to get polearms and brain mixed up. - Porange
- If you aren't sure if a spear is stabsafe, don't stab. If you are sure a spear is stabsafe, but aren't sure how to safely stab with it, don't stab. If you pick up a spear off someone else in the middle of an encounter, don't stab. --Tea
- Does not cover brain farts. - Porange
- It's making a conscious decision to stab before each stab. That will cover every brainfart apart from "picked up a physrep and reflexively stabbed", which is already an issue due to lots of people playing games which allow stabbing. --Tea
- I think it does cover brainfarts because your best option if you are worried is to totally ignore this motion ever existed and never stab which is no different that the current situation. As long as we have polearm comp cover both types and possibly get a bit tighter on briefing not to use polearms without comp, I don't believe it'll cause trouble. --dp
I've seen 2 safety problems with them, both of which the motion addresses: 1. people being generally unsafe, is no worse than regular polearms and we have weapon comp testing and advice for that. 2. People using them 1 handed when they are really not strong enough and having no control, we address that by forcing it to be a 2 handed weapon. --Drac
So, Empire 1 has now happened. Empire, notably, has a system where you can stab with a stab-safe polearm, but not all polearms have to be stab-safe. I therefore had a chat with PST and asked whether they
had found this lead to dreadful confusion. Apparently there were "1-2 incidents" reported to him of confusion between a stabsafe and a non-stabsafe, causing no serious injuries (probably therefore a few
more which happened and didn't get reported). And that's in a game with over 1100 people on the ground for the battles, and a much lower level of direct ref presence than we have. As long as we run
sensibly, make sure to teach people about the difference, and so on, I think it should be fine. --Tea
- I heard rather more than 1-2, from the refs briefing the Sunday battle, but still not enough to make me think this motion is a mistake. --I
I also went and chatted to Chris of Saxon Violence, and got some instructions for how to make a stabsafe spear, so I'll turn a spare piece of core into one over the summer if we pass this. --Tea
Introduce a call permitting close-range archery without physically shooting an arrow/bolt
- Proposed by: Rosemary
- Seconded by: Megan
This motion will introduce a call, likely to be "LOOSE", to permit calling damage with a bow or crossbow at close range without the associated OOC safety concerns of actually shooting point-blank at someone. Use of this call should only be permitted at close range; suggest 3m because that is mass range so nobody has to remember a new distance.
There will need to be an implementation detail of the form "only do this if you have a clear shot" as per Backstab, and probably a rule that the arrow must be returned to the quiver and another one put on the bow before another shot can be taken, or something similar, perhaps with a time limit.
Explanation of reasoning
Being shot at close range often hurts. Bows aren't all that powerful stats-wise. Enough said.
Comments
- Would there be a cap on the number of times this could be done per encounter? --Jacob
- I think that the specifics of how this works should be nailed down a lot more, as there seems to currently be some confusion about details. --Tea
- Yes please! I was hoping people who are better at writing rules than me would do exactly that :-) --Pufferfish
- In the spirit of being helpful: "if you are in a situation where you could trivially shoot the target (bow drawn/crossbow loaded, aimed, clear line of fire), but you are very close to them due to e.g. a cramped bar or being charged, you call LOOSE [Damage call] instead of actually firing the projectile, and then unload and reload your weapon." --Tea
- Addendum: "this is intended to make close range archery that would be IC sensible OC safer, not to provide combat advantage. As a first priority you should try to avoid shooting targets at very close range. If you are being e.g. charged down, but successfully load and draw before they actually reach you, this is the situation to use the Loose call in. Do not take the piss, please". --Tea
- I have some experience of this being used and don't have a problem in principle. The biggest single issue I find is the possibility of doing it too often (as well as the fact some archers suddenly get much more accurate, especially if shooting into a melee). Since it only replaces a point blank shot which should not be taken for safety reasons, you could argue that at that stage the archer is effectively in a melee where it is often impractical to reload. Thus they should not use their bow again in that encounter, which gives some realism and hopefully discourages taking the piss. --TimB
- I have a general habit of then running away for a while and fully reloading, at which point I think it's fairly justified to shoot again. This is because I've normally found a loose type call useful when I'm off to one side and someone decides to charge me, but I get the bow loaded just before they reach me. --Tea
- Has anybody played in a system where this call is common? I do recall LT used to have it probably decades ago now but removed it due to abuse. I doubt it'd be a huge problem in a local system. The issues I do see are shields (comes under Tim's point of archers suddenly get a lot more accurate) and always hitting the body - potentially quite a decent mechanical benefit in the right circumstance. --dp
- Is anyone with a shield in the right general arc at liberty to not-take the shot? Anyone with cover (and someone they are in melee with counts if in the right arc)? If there is ever a situation where someone who can use a bow at short range safely (and honestly, if not, I'm not sure they should be passing bow comp) wants to use loose instead for mechanical advantage, this rule fails. Crossbows are, at least, impossible to part-draw, so I can see a case for using it on the Fairbow style ones. --I
Make the effects of Blessing 4 easier to remember
- Proposed by: Joey
- Seconded by: Steph
Blessing 4 should also protect against DISARM
Explanation of reasoning
At the moment, Blessing 4 protects against all the other status effects and it looks like an oversight to me that it doesn't protect against DISARM. Protecting against DISARM would make the effects of blessing 4 easier to remember.
Comments
- I wouldn't call it an oversight, because Valour buffs and Spirit Weapons are already excellent spiritual ways to protect against DISARM, and the list of things it protects against is stated in the description twice. There is a lot of DISARM resistance/immunity in the system already, and I'm not sure it's a good thing to offer more access to it. Could it be worded as "You may ignore two status effects that are not DISARM"? -Jim.
- I don't think it makes a big difference to balance, and just makes things far simpler. --Steph
- I'd probably vote for it on the grounds of "this is simpler" but it does look like it misses out DISARM for a reason there. -Jim
Make Blessing 3 work more like Grey Resists
- Proposed by: Nobody now.
- Seconded by:
Blessing 3 should read:
"Call "Inflict 3: You may ignore any two damage calls you would otherwise take, except for a call containing [COLOUR] or MAGIC. These do not have to be the next two calls you suffer"
Explanation of reasoning
Dispel Magic and Dispel Damage explicitly state that you can't resist SPIRIT calls with them. This is because Magic and Spirit interact poorly. It seems logical to mirror that description here so that Spiritual Defences don't work against Magical attacks, and vice versa.
Comments
- In the basics of basics sense. Question: Does this make the system more complicated. Answer: Yes. Therefore I consider it not a good idea. --Malselene
- Also fundamentally this doesn't make sense. Spirit on a metaphysical level is more intelligent than magic and does 'stop damage'. 'Magic dispels only dispel other magic. See under dispel magic. It also doesn't work on " a weapon blow, a call containing 'Spirit', SLAY, DROP or a potion". Spirit is only one of the things it can't deal with. Blessings and Grey anti magic stuff really aren't the same. --Malselene
- +1. Magic defenses are a shield of magical energy. Spirit defenses through Blessing are a spirit of the god sitting on your shoulder blocking weapons for you. --Tea
- On perhaps a related note: the current wording means that Dispel Magic resists work on, e.g. the Smite Soul tree, as these calls don't contain Spirit in. This doesn't seem to be what is intended. Possibly this should be fixed? -- Salavant
- I can't think of any way to do this that doesn't result in Too Many Words or a similar form of 'oh gods no'. --MorkaisChosen
- +inf --Tea
- Add "Spirit" as a modifier to such effects?
- As an addendum to numerous points I agree with above, Priests get a lot less spirit than mages get mana. This is balanced by the fact miracles are generally a bit better, spirit damage is harder to resist than magic and that priests can solve TPKs by committing suicide. --TimB
- This is easily explained as "Smite Soul is Complex Religion and there's this big lump of interfering, incompatible magic dicking with the Spirit trying to puppet you. A Spirit Punches You in the Face is simple.". I don't think we need an fix that makes Smite Soul better than it already is. -Jim
- If something doesn't have a Spirit, it technically shouldn't be affected by Smite Soul miracles, I think? METAPHYSICS -- Salavany
- "MASS SPIRIT STRIKEDOWN 30" is exactly what I meant by Too Many Words. Having played a variety of casters and noted that "strikederp, um, strikedown 10" happens anyway, adding an extra two syllables to allow two spells and a few monster roles to work in a slightly more nuanced way seems like too much effort. If we were DUTT, with Halt being a miracle and Cage of Light a spell, I'd be all for this, because it doesn't add more words and confusion to calls, but we aren't; we have a unified call system, and I think a spell being useful against priests as well as mages is much less bad than more call length. --MorkaisChosen
- Ironically, put this forward in an attempt to make things simpler by having all the magic/spirit interactions work the same way, as opposed to different ways. Magic and Spirit are incompatible, so put it all the way through. I find it easier to remember one more complex effect than a bunch of simple but varied ones. If more people don't, there's no point in this. Retracted for now.-Jim
- This isn't a spirit magic are incomparable comparison though. This is magic doing dispel magic and spirit doing very nice protection buffs with a downside that the spirit involved will get highly pissed off if stricture are broken. There is no metaphysical similarity. Just a slight similarity in implementation. --Malselene
Allow elemental elves to use elemental human facepaint requirements
- Proposed by: Hark
- Seconded by: Steph
We propose that the elemental elf physrep requirement be altered to the following:
"The physrep for an Elemental Elf is coloured make-up on face and (ideally) all visible skin. This may either be a solid colouring or lines of the given colour. They often wear clothes of their elemental colour (Dark=Black, Light=White, Earth=Brown, Air=Blue, Fire=Red, Water=Green). Elemental Elves have pointed ears, but it is acceptable to cover lack of physrep with a headband or hat as long as solid colour make-up is used."
Motion text V2:
We propose that the elemental elf physrep requirement be altered to the following:
"The physrep for an Elemental Elf is coloured make-up on face and (ideally) all visible skin. This may either be a solid colouring or lines of the given elemental colour. Elemental Elves have pointed ears, but it is acceptable to cover lack of physrep with a headband or hat."
Reasoning:This is to make elemental elves a less daunting physrep requirement to new players, allow for more creativity with appearance and to compensate for some of the OC problems with physrepping Tomten and Drow. The requirement for solid make-up if pointed ears are lacking is the differentiate from an elemental human physrep.
Comments
- There is also a suggestion that the physrep guide should recommend the use of non full make-up for Tomten and Drow due to aforementioned OC reasons.
- I don't think there's any need to specify that elemental elves often wear clothes of their elemental colour. --Joey
- I am vaugely unsure about any physrep requirement that has clothing as a component, and I feel like we could make the guidelines for this a little clearer. We also probably want a seperate motion to deal with Tomten and Drow. -- Salavant
- I apologise for the clothes part as that is actually part of the current physrep requirement as is shown on the website that I copied. --Hark
- Often is not always. For comparison the write-up for kender states that they are 'almost always distinguishable by their clothing'. However as a statement of what is usual in the game world rather than what is an OC requirement it might be better moved to the section on Playable Races under the Setting tab? -- SevenSecrets
- I don't think the confusion of hidden ears between elemental elves and elemental humans is a necessary reason to make people block up, given that it already exists between true elves and true humans. I will second a form of the motion which simply states "lines in the elemental colour on all visible skin is now a valid replacement for block colour for elemental elves" or equivalent. --Tea
- Yeah, agreed. If you have squiggles on your face people will know you are an EE. For ease of monster kitting esp, the ears are basically not that relevant. --Steph
=== Recomend Tomten and Drow use amended physreps due to OC reasons===
- Proposed by: Hark
- Seconded by:
We propose that assuming the motion 'Allow elemental elves to use elemental human facepaint requirements' passes that the following be added as a suggestion to players:
"If you are planning to play a Tomten(Brown elf) or Drow(Black elf) we would recommend that you use the line based physreps for OC reasons."
This is to compensate for some of the OC problems with physrepping Tomten and Drow.
- I am confused as to what the OC problems are for Drow or Tonton that are not present in the other elves? Having spent days with both black and brown makeup and not found the after effects any worse than the other colours --Drac
- I believe the point is that Tomten and Drow makeup on white people could be confused for minstrel-show-esque blackface
- by the general public leading to Issues. -- SevenSecrets
Comments
Delete dwarf racial physrepping option of facepaint
- Proposed by: dp
- Seconded by: Tea
Remove the physrepping option for dwarves of: a large solid block of silver/white/gray on both cheeks. Addendum: The refs may either provide some IC reasoning or just declare it has Always Been That Way (TM).
It often doesn't look obvious enough, particularly as the colours specified often don't show up well. Horns look way better. It will make it easier to allow non-solid coloured elemental elves with less confusion. Horns aren't expensive. We can allow horns drawn on the forehead with makeup if people are short of physreps, especially refs.
Comments
- I actually quite like that there are two different physreps (and there are established IC reasons for it), but I agree the current one has issues. -- Salavant
- On the other hand, there are certainly IC things that could cause one of the physreps to vanish. --Joey
- We have had about seven PC dwarves in play this year. The silver facepaint option has been used by one of them. It's never been used by a monster. Says it all, really... --Tea
- Indeed, but I would perhaps favour a better alternative physrep, but retain having two. -- Salavant
- cheek scales. In a colour. Nice tough skin for going down t'mines - Porange (who is aware that dwarves aren't a minign species in TT particularly)
- No other race has two totally different physreps and I've not seen any suggestions that we should add a second totally different physrep for kender/elves/humans/skaven/orcs because it's somehow useful. I don't see the point - it just adds another element of confusion to the system. Horns are a very cool physrep for dwarves which I expect is why everybody uses them. Why allow a less cool option? If people want to tinker with the alternate option, they will have to put in a separate motion since I'm happy with this one as it stands. --dp
- It was originally put in to give the refs an easy way of doing dwarf NPC's (make up being easier to bring in quantity than horns), rather than for players. In the year when this motion was passed almost all dwarf NPC's had used makeup rather than horns. --Drac
- The difference is that this year, we commissioned 3 sets of horns from Tea which didn't need gluing on to faces and so were much easier to kit up. I agree with Salavant that there are good IC reasons for 2 physreps and that the game would lose out if we got rid of one. I think a sensible way to do physrepping would be "Dwarves have horns, which may either be a natural colour or obviously metallic. This retains 2 distinct flavours of physrep and makes them both the easy-to-recognise horns -Jim.
- This might work. --MorkaisChosen
- How is have two different colours of horns possible as racial physreps any different from just having a simple physrep requirement of horns? --Malselene
- There's some Plot behind it. Not sure how much detail is public, but on the linear last year when the Dwarven Ancestors showed up, one was shiny and one was horny. This suggests some sort of link. --MorkaisChosen
- Speaking as someone who knows the plot from both sides, I believe that just deleting the physrep option by AGM would be entirely workable and not cause any huge issues. It would be trivial to resolve across Easter term and the start of next Michaelmas. --Tea
Tweak XP system
- Proposed by: Greg
- Seconded by: Ivan
In brief: removing the link between XP of lowest-level character and XP gained per week. All players get 6xp per interactive, which can be split up between characters subject to the current rules - no more than 5 for 240-360xp characters, no more than 4 to >360xp characters.
Modify interactive XP rules as follows:
You gain 6xp for each interactive you attend, which can be split up between your characters. If your character has less than 240XP (end of Level 4), then the full 6xp may be given to that character. If you have at least 240XP and less than 360XP (end of Level 6), then you may assign up to 5XP to that character. If you have at least 360XP, then you may assign at most 4XP. XP that cannot be assigned to any character is lost. The total is based on the amount of XP the character has gained, not the amount spent - it is fine to be saving up for an expensive skill or merely forget to update and spend your xp for a while, but not to use this to try and qualify for the faster rate of further xp gain after level 4 or 6. If you monster an interactive for at least 30 minutes but are unable to play any of your characters you receive 3XP as if you had monstered a linear.
For example, if someone plays Kalira the elf on 160xp and Master Stormchaser the wind mage on 250xp, they will gain 6xp for the interactive, but can spend a maximum of 5xp on Stormchaser. Some time later, Kalira is at 190xp and Stormchaser is at 370; the player still gains 6xp for the interactive, but now Kalira may have at most 5xp and Stormchaser can be given at most 4xp; 5xp to Kalira and 1xp to Stormchaser is allowed, as is 2xp to Kalira and 4xp to Stormchaser or anything in between.
Delete the paragraph "If you play multiple characters with XP levels such that they are in different groups, then you gain XP for the character that currently has the lowest amount of XP and you may not assign more XP to the highest-level character than they would gain if they were the only character played. For example, if someone plays Bob the fire mage on 160xp and Ben the Johnite on 250xp, he will gain 6XP for the interactive, but can spend a maximum of 5XP on Ben."
Current wording: Interactive xp is awarded for attending an interactive based on the amount of XP your character has already gained. If your character has less than 240XP (end of Level 4), then you gain 6XP for that character after each interactive. If you have at least 240XP and less than 360XP (end of Level 6), then you gain 5XP for that character. If you have at least 360XP, then you gain 4XP. The total is based on the amount of XP the character has gained, not the amount spent - it is fine to be saving up for an expensive skill or merely forget to update and spend your xp for a while, but not to use this to try and qualify for the faster rate of further xp gain after level 4 or 6. If you monster an interactive for at least 30 minutes but are unable to play any of your characters you receive 3XP as if you had monstered a linear.
Reasoning: this will simplify working out how much XP you gain in a week, as it's always 6; it also removes the perverse incentive to play a third character and never give them any XP so you have more to spend on your main characters. For example, while John and Justin were both in the 240-360 range, I gained 5xp a week, of which at most 5 could go to either character - but had I played a pointless beggar PC for half an hour every interactive, I would have had 6, which I could split up solely between John and Justin, leaving them better off because I played them less. This is a bit silly. I do also believe this tweak simplifies the system, however.
Comments
- If I play 1 character on 360+xp then I gain 6xp of which I can spend 4 on my character. What happens to the other 2xp? --Joey
- It is eaten by a grue, as mentioned by one sentence hidden in the middle of the wall of text - "XP that cannot be assigned to any character is lost." --MorkaisChosen
- Is it just that this wording is a little clearer? I can't off the top of my head think of any situations where this is mechanically different. --Chevron
- John and Justin on 250. 5xp, at most 5 to any one character under current rules - say 5 to John. Under this rule, 6xp, at most 5xp to either, so I can give John 5 and Justin 1. Notably, this removes the stupid little loophole where playing Dave the Peasant for 30 minutes exactly gives me 6xp, of which at most 5 can go to John and 5 to Justin - so I can give 5 to John and 1 to Justin. This is mechanically different. --MorkaisChosen
- I have an alternate suggestion - we just make it 6xp/interactive per player and remove the tailoff. The tailoff was to reduce the gain at the top end, however, we now have the 'you must retire after a year above level 6 rule which I feel deals with the same problem much better. Further to this, if you're stuck at 4xp/interactive, it can be quite difficult to get to level 8 within that year if you particularly care. --dp
- I wouldn't object, but that's a bigger change to the system than this proposal, and I incline to not making large changes. --MorkaisChosen
General Skill Dueling
- Proposed by: Jim
- Seconded by: Hark
Replace Dueling in Warrior with:
General Skill: Dueling (1XP)
You may make the call TOUCH with a melee weapon. This represents a controlled strike that only breaks the skin. it does no damage and will not break halt or interrupt casting. You have 2 calls of RESIST to TOUCH calls per duel. Duels end when a PC takes a TOUCH call.
Reasoning
- Letting everyone have 2 dodges both lengthens the duels to make them more interesting and prevents silly tactics that then leave you exposed.
- Limiting everyone to 2 dodges makes this into a way to fight with hardskills only.
- It is now cheap, available to all, and makes it far more likely that Dueling is used as opposed to Duels only happening between that one PC with Dueling and the NPC Duelist.
Comments
This gains nothing on the system and nullifies what I believe the original purpose of dueling was in the first place - aka allowing people to have swordfights with hard skills only. (which has admittedly been diluted with the later levels of it). --Drac
- Note that this a) removes duelling progressino, so is now hard-skills only, basically, and b) removes the ability of touch to break halt or interrupt casting. I'm undecided about the inherent dodges, but they do help avoid silly one-touch swrodfights - maybe the general duellign contract being to three touches would work better though. --Tea
- I retract the comment which was due to poor reading on my part. --Drac
- I think that an IC social contract to three touches would work better because I think that the negates make duelling a bit silly because it often pauses for a bit while people try to remember what level of duelling they have and then they say 'ah, no, you didn't hit me even though it looked just like you did'. But I also think that actually, we should just remove the duelling skill completely and people can call NOTHING. --Joey
- Duelling rules already require you to withdraw after each touch is landed (or more likely, DACed). Silly tactics will still be effective, but require repeating. Oh, and how does this interact with DAC? --I
Playable Fuegans
Fuegans should be confirmed as a player race and their racial package made public on the website.
- Proposed by: Jim
- Seconded by: Salavant
We have had one Fuegan PC played by Rakdos as a test of the race for players, and numerous NPCs for plots. They should be public.
Tidy up and Simplify some aspects of the system
- Proposed by: Salavant
- Seconded by: Steph
We propose that all skills in the system be removed and character progression eliminated. At start-up character recieve 1XP which they can spend on a background skill of their choice, on the ability to call SINGLE with any weapon physrep, or on a gecko familiar who follows them around all the time (physrepped by a ref or member of the monster crew in a green Zentai suit). The ref team is mandated to accept bribes on choice of physrep for the gecko. If two geckos meet, they may engage in a dance-off, the judging of which shall be conducted in the 4 categories of style, control, damage and aggression. The only call in the system shall be SINGLE and HARM ELEMENTAL CRITICAL VITALS SLAY, the latter causing two points of damage. Character shall have 3 global hits, and armour as worn. Armour has no mechanical effect.
Comments
- I am confident that this will improve the game for everyone. - Salavant
- How about Tea/SimpleTT, when I get it finished? --Tea
- That just doesn't provide the elegant verisimilitude I am looking for in a system. -- Salavant
- There are not words to describe the level of improvement this would cause--Drac
- Anyone who opposes this motion is 100% pure demon gecko, and there is no room for them in polite society --kangaroo
- Being a demon gecko is worth exile from polite society! I mean, c'mon, DEMON GECKO! -- SevenSecrets
- I'm convinced. I will be opposing this motion. --MorkaisChosen
Introduce a new skill to Warrior - "Three-handed"
- Proposed by: Emily
- Seconded by: Steph
Introduce the three-handed skill to Warrior at level 3, allowing people to use three-handed weapons for "BOOM FNAR LIZARDS EEP IMPALE SQUEAK EXPLOSION THROUGH CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL SEPTIC DEMENT". Third hand must be real - having a third hand IC but not OC does not give you access to the three-handed skill. A second level of Three-Handed may be bought at Warrior 5 to be able to call "BOOM FNAR DOUBLE LIZARDS EEP IMPALE SQUEAK EXPLOSION THROUGH CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL SEPTIC DEMENT".
In light of recent advancements in medical science, it is now possible that LARPers can have third arms added. I feel that LARPers who go to this extreme should be rewarded and allowed to take advantage of their new additional limbs.
Comments
- I think that this damage call is too short - anyone who has gone to that awesome a level of physrepping / OOC murderising should be rewarded with a few extra things to shout. WHY, AM and BUTTS being three obvious missing elements along with HELP DROWNING. --kangaroo
- Do you really want to be responsible when porange starts chopping people up for spare parts? --Jacob
- We think that as a natural follow on to this motion, the Two-Handed skill should be changed to only permit calling as much damage as you have hands. Members of the society with less than the standard number of fingers should now call (for instance) 1.95 instead of Double, this being compensated for by the additional confusion it will cause. Extra 0.05s round down after combat. --Pfish Gestalt
- Three-Handed Two is underpowered compared to using two swords and a shield for DOUBLE, which has vastly better damage potential as well as defence, in my extensive experience of fighting with one sword or polearm. I suggest "KABOOM HURR DOUBLE DINOSAURS ARGH EVISCERATE SQUEE NUCLEAR MYSTIC CRITICAL VITALS HEAT METAL ANTIMATTER SLAY" --MorkaisChosen