Nioca

Regarding the rules question: That IS what the rules intended, actually. You start with 10 attribute points for first level, but you need to spend 1 in each attribute to start off. Anyway, on a different front, I've given it some consideration, and I've decided to bow out of the campaign. I'm sorry for the seeming abruptness of it, but the headaches MapTool has been giving me throughout is pretty much ruining the campaign for me, and I just don't think this campaign is for me. Thank you for the opportunity, Earles, but I think I need to bid adieu. Handle (or get rid of) Henrietta however you see fit.

Okay, my advance. Basically, I took the Power Points edge so as to have a greater power point reserve (because having just 10 quickly cramps one's spellcasting style). Also, all of the above days work fine for me. Also, question: Does an animal companion count as an ally for the purpose of determining whether the companion is eligible for advances? I thought the answer was yes (which is why Waddles' NPC sheet has a note for Advances), but now I'm not sure.

27th and 28th work for me. Sorry for not responding sooner, things got hectic on my end for a little while.

I'm getting an error when I attempt to connect. It's saying that my own External IP is unlikely to work, and then when I try to connect anyway, it says my connection was refused. EDIT: Sniped. Relieved to see it's not just me.

Something came up on my end as well; my ISP just informed me they're doing maintenance tonight. It shouldn't interfere with the session, so long as it doesn't run past ~11:55 PM EST; if it does, I'll have to depart.

What? I replied to both calendars. Anyway, yeah, 7th works for me.

Earles: It seems you don't know, but the PM's up. Also, the PM notification system is still glitched a bit.

I'm getting onto the server now. It may take a while.

I'm in. I'll download the software right away. (Also, I'm apparently a time traveler. *facepalm about schedule* )

Ditto what Earles said. I can be on at those times tomorrow.

I'm afraid I won't be able to make the session tonight. I've been battling with a particularly nasty migraine most of today, and unfortunately, the migraine's winning. Don't reschedule on my behalf; my character hasn't been particularly active (mostly for MapTool reasons), so just put her on auto-pilot for the time being.

28th works for me.

I'd like to apologize for abruptly vanishing into ether. Real life stuff happened that can only be described in language I am prohibited from using here, and it caused the game to slip from my mind. So... sorry.

The game Earles posted isn't a live game; it's got an 36-hour phase. EDIT: ...Apparently, I think a day lasts 6 hours. *facepalm*

Honestly, the 30 minute start time didn't help. It was only sheer happenstance I stumbled upon it with only ten minutes left on the clock.

I like 'em. Very, very nice. Although I have to say I'm not too sure about the Jade Halberd's design; primarily because what you have there is a glaive or guan dao, not a halberd. I can't remember if there was any in-game description, but what about the Heartstriker Bow?

Aye, I'd be up for it. (will be logging on shortly)

...y'know, I actually had a nice post written up. It had facts to debate what Kelandon was saying, actual facts. It had a snarky comment about criminals not obeying laws, but otherwise was very respectful. But as I was typing it up, a new post came up. I read it, and I thought, "screw it". You see, this is what's wrong with gun control debates. It has nothing to do with gun control. All it has to do with is each side taking a steaming dump on each other at every opportune moment, screaming tautologies at the top of their lungs in hopes that they'll be heard, and monopolizing on people's suffering whenever it's convenient for them. I mean, really. We've gone from fairly civil discourse here to utter dreck in a matter of a few posts. The bullcrap flies so hard and fast between both sides that you can't even find the truth anymore. Things like Newtown should encourage people to look at everything, EVERYTHING, that can be done to prevent disasters like that from happening again; and instead, we get... this. *sigh*

*is on the server*

Did it? I decided to poke around for statistics, and best I can tell, there's been little-to-no change in violent crime in the years since the gun bans took effect. Hard to say for 100% certain, since different sources say different things, but from what I found, it seems like homicides remained steady till 2003 (then dropped slightly), and overall violent crime has been slowly increasing. In any case, it's not exactly encouraging regarding its effectiveness. If you can point me to solid, unbiased statistics showing it's actually been effective in Australia, then feel free to prove me wrong. Furthermore, the situation in Australia is vastly different from the situation in America. Australians didn't have gun rights like Americans, and firearms were far less prevelant in Australia to begin with. I think SoT's already mentioned that a gun buyback program like Australia's would be a far more massive (and far more expensive) undertaking when it comes to the United States. So trying to say that, "if it worked for Australia, it'll work here" just plain doesn't work.

My cousin just sent me Omaha Steaks. Which has brightened my holidays quite a bit, let me tell you. (Almost burning my hands on the dry ice inside the cooler it was sent in wasn't as pleasant, but no lasting harm done)

(I didn't ignore this earlier, I just wanted to think on my response for a while before posting) This is why most assault rifles are Burst-Fire now, rather than fully automatic (although some still have a full-auto option). And while big machine guns are all well and good, they're not really helpful when you need man-portable suppressive fire. Okay, yes, if you're an expert, you can fire a bolt-action rifle very quickly and accurately. And therein lies the catch: how many people do you think would actually have the expertise necessary to do that? Considering that your standard home-invasion scenario involves being in extremely close-quarters with one's assailant/invader, and also factoring in the kind of stress the shooter would be under, your average joe off the street would likely have one, maybe two shots to hit a moving target before said target could close and disarm them (assuming the intruder didn't have a weapon of their own and kills the homeowner while they're attempting to work the action). And, no offense, but if I feel the need to carry a weapon to defend myself, I want something that gives me more than one chance to take down my attacker, not something I'd be better off using as a bludgeon. Furthermore, if the person needs to carry a firearm with them to defend themselves (such as in the case of a stalker or someone actively threatening your life)... well, good luck fitting a bolt-action rifle into a purse (and while open carry might be technically legal in some areas, walking around holding a rifle is still liable to get you arrested anyway without a damn good reason for why you're doing it). Finally, one other problem with using bolt-action rifles (and rifles in general) for self-defense is that they tend to be very powerful, and tend to maintain terminal velocity for very long ranges. If you miss, or if that shot overpenetrates? That bullet's likely to keep going till it finds something else to embed itself in. It's a risk present in all kinds of firearms, of course (and most firearms safety stresses being conscious of what's behind your target), but it's less prevalent* in pistol caliber weapons. Which, in my book, makes pistols a whole lot safer to use as a self-defense weapon than full-sized rifles. *Barring certain oversized cartridges. *cough* .50 Action Express *cough* Don't get me wrong; Bolt-action rifles are very, very good at what they do. But when it comes to self-defense, your average civilian needs something that's simple, portable, easy to use, fast to utilize, and has low penetration; handguns serve this purpose a whole lot better than bolt-action rifles.

Apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking that armed personnel might be the answer; a bill just passed the Michigan House and Senate (and is awaiting the governers approval) that would allow anyone with concealed carry rights who take extra training to carry a concealed firearm into schools, daycares, hospitals, and other public places (although I imagine you'd still be restricted from carrying onto state property unless you were a police officer or state/federal agent).

I'm presuming you mean the carbine here. To which my answer is... maybe? Maybe not? To avoid superfluous technical details, the gun was basically a semiauto-only variant of an M4 Carbine. I could see a tiny bit of use for long range sporting contests, but honestly, it's really sort of pushing the limits of reason (maybe if you got into some seriously deep crap and managed to tick off an entire gang or something, but honestly, it's ridiculously overkill for all but the most absurdly extreme personal defense scenarios). Especially with how little most people* in the US trust the government anymore (which is another reason why a buyback might hit a lot of resistance). *I admit this is a generalization, but frankly, I haven't seen anything to indicate the contrary.

You make it sound so cut-and-dry, and it's really not. Banning guns tends to be a hit-and-miss measure. Sometimes, it works, and overall violence drops. Other times, it actually causes violent crime to increase. And sometimes, it does nothing. If banning guns was a sure-fire way to stop violence, it would have been done a long time ago. But it's not; It's a big and very complicated issue (Pro- and anti- gun advocates are doing little to help the issue; It's surprisingly difficult to get solid facts and statistics, since most sources and sturdies tend to be slanted to the viewpoint of either anti- or pro-, rather than neutral. Not to mention the pleathora of different factors and such that can impact gun violence and overall violence). I personally am in favor of an assault weapons ban, simply because I believe no civilian (barring security and paramilitary organizations) needs the kind of firepower a machine pistol, SMG, assault rifle, or other rapid-firing machine gun can provide. But I also find the idea of a gun buyback rather laughable, simply because the whole idea is flawed on a fundamental level: namely, that people will just turn over their guns because the government says so. They tried gun buyback for a few years here in the US. It was ineffective and an utter waste of taxpayer dollars. There is a "Gun Bounty" system in place in a few Florida cities which specifically target illegal guns that's showing greater promise, though. Being a Michigander, though, I really don't have the details on the gun bounty system beyond what Wikipedia provides. P.S. Please refrain from calling gun supporters "gun nuts". Just because someone supports second amendment rights to carry firearms or owns a gun does not make them a trigger-happy homicidal lunatic.