From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 01:21:21 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA03140; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:21:21 +1200 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id BAA03129 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:21:21 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p12-max30.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.239.12]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA30388 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:17:58 +1200 Message-Id: <199809281317.BAA30388@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Agenda Item re Ritual magic Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:11:16 +1200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Jacqui Smith > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Agenda Item re Ritual magic > Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 1:06 PM > > > Further to discussion last meeting, I propose the following rules amendments: > > 1. Unless otherwise specified in the ritual description, rituals > neither backfire nor produce multiple effects. > > Rationale: The less time spent in casting a spell the greater the > chance that a mistake is made and the mana goes awry producing a backfire > result. Thus pulse-casting is riskier than minute-casting. Ritual magic > channels mana slowly and carefully over a period of (most commonly) a full > hour, eliminating the risk of backfire from all but the most difficult > work. This is already the case, and needs no rule amendment to address. Unless otherwise stated, rituals do not have backfires. > 2. Ritual spell preparation eliminates the risk of both backfire and > multiple effect from spell-casting. This is an argument that seeks to use logic to defend the nature of something that has no existence outside of a game. Let me recapitulate it. 1st statement: Unless otherwise stated, rituals have no backfire. 2nd statement: Ritual spell preparation is a ritual. Conclusion: There should be no backfire result from ritual spell preparation. Completely aside from whether or not it's a good idea or not, this argument is a completely spurious one. One does not generate a valid reason for a change to the game, from such rules lawyery antics. I would oppose such a move, if only to step on rules lawyers, for they are foul, noxious, and pestilential breed. In any case, a counter argument can be proposed along the lines, that a) the SPELL is only being ritually prepared, therefore the spell backfire table applies. Regardless of the nature of the means to implement the magic, it is still a spell, and falls under the jurisdiction of those rules that deal with them...That would include backfires. > Rationale: As above, plus a) makes ritual spell preparation more > worthwhile, and b) provides a mechanism, albeit a time-consuming one, for > ranking spells without risking backfire, and thus eliminating all those > ranking rolls. Ritual spell preparation is perfectly fine the way is as far as a) is concerned. It is not a ritual you have to learn, and therefore doesn't count against your MA requirement to qualify for a college. You can't lose it as a result of backfire, and you never Rank it. It's a free option, with no down side. It freely increases the base chance of spells, for the cost of an hour for every 3 points of bonus...Why, pray does it need to be any better? As far as b) is concerned, these are player concerns, not DM ones. You might say that it's tedious to have to watch a player roll to make the required number of casts, and let's have done with it. But you don't argue that it should change because you don't like having to make the rolls as a player...Come on, Jacqui...Turn your bloody brain on...You are asking for a change that will have an impact on the game to some degree or other...I think you owe the other DMs some proper DM reasons, not an airing of what one of your character's thinks would be more interesting. > > And a small plea to remove an inconsistency - Earth mage healing is the > only spell in the book which has material components without producing a > physical product. It's also a five-minute cast. Perhaps a poultice of a > specific healing herb like Amaranth should be required? And one minute to > cast? A poultice of amaranth is fine, if you want it to be a poultice of amaranth...Personally, I think every Earth mage should have their own special mixture of weird ingredients for different kinds of damage healing, that they guard jealously...As for the time to cast, I'm in no hurry to see that changed, really. They have some pretty good healing spells already, and I don't fancy seeing them with another one. As far as the argument is concerned, what exactly is the value of consistency, when you're talking about something completely made up, derived from sources that regularly disagree and contradict each other...You can't point to an occult source and say, 'Ah, well, that Hermes Trismegistus certainly knew what he was talking about...You've only got to see that conjuration for piebald demons of the lesser trench of Hell, just to the left of the red Dairy, across from the school, there, to know he really knew his onions, so to speak...' Jim. Surprised, and a little worried, too... -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 08:04:01 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA03357; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:04:01 +1200 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA03347 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:04:00 +1200 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p23-max30.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.239.23]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA09033 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:00:39 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980929075727.007e2660@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:57:27 +1200 Subject: Duration of Talent potions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. How long does the effects of a potion last for, after consumption, if there is no duration listed for the corresponding spell or talent. For example: Celestial Nightvision talent is 'always active'. How long would a Potion of Nightvision run for? Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 08:51:38 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA03415; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:51:38 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA03405 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:51:37 +1200 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO205e ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id AAA186 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:41:01 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BDEB86.3325EB30@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:50:25 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Agenda Item re Ritual magic Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:50:18 +1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >> 1. Unless otherwise specified in the ritual description, rituals >> neither backfire nor produce multiple effects. > >This is already the case, and needs no rule amendment to address. Unless >otherwise stated, rituals do not have backfires. Actually, the rules state "If not otherwise stated in the specific ritual description, a ritual may backfire with similar consequences to a spell." The GMs appear to have polarised against this, so it should be changed. I still prefer backfiring by default. There is no definite single statement on multiple effects, though "rules-lawyering" clearly derives that rituals may double/triple as per spells, which (I believe) most GMs do not want. I would like it specifically prohibited. I agree with Jim that Ritual Spell Preparation need not protect against backfires & doubles/triples, and his reasoning for this. Andrew -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 08:57:54 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA03445; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:57:54 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA03436 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:57:53 +1200 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO205e ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id AAA250 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:45:05 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BDEB86.C484BB60@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:54:29 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Duration of Talent potions Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:54:27 +1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Alchemist 29.2, last paragraph The duration of a potioned talent, that is the duration of the talent the imbiber will gain, is 1 hour =D7 Rank of Alchemist (minimum 1). This overrides the normal duration of the talent. Andrew >---------- >From: Keith Smith[SMTP:phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz] >Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 1998 7:57 >To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Subject: Duration of Talent potions > >How long does the effects of a potion last for, after consumption, if = there >is no duration listed for the corresponding spell or talent. > >For example: Celestial Nightvision talent is 'always active'. How long >would a Potion of Nightvision run for? > >Keith >(phaeton@ihug.co.nz) > > > >-- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 10:53:52 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA03576; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:53:52 +1200 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA03567 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:53:51 +1200 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1/8.9.1-ua) with SMTP id KAA11509 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:50:28 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199809282250.KAA11509@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:53:14 +0000 Subject: RE: Agenda Item re Ritual magic X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-to: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Dear all (esp. Jacqi) >> 1. Unless otherwise specified in the ritual description, >> rituals neither backfire nor produce multiple effects. > >This is already the case, and needs no rule amendment to address. >Unless otherwise stated, rituals do not have backfires. Actually this is _not_ the case, as well as Andrew's comments, cf: Backfire: If a spell or ritual is particularly incompetently cast, unpredictable and often dangerous effects can occur. This is colloquially known as a backfire. Bearing in mind that we *can* change the rules, if we think we should; I am firmly with Andrew & Jim that there should be backfires for rituals. This is consistent with p.28: Magical effects from Ritual Magic tend to be more powerful, prolonged or delayed than those of Spells. > Rationale: The less time spent in casting a spell the greater > the chance that a mistake is made and the mana goes awry producing a > backfire result. Thus pulse-casting is riskier than minute-casting. This isa true fact, but inappropriate as an analogy -- a better one would be *if* someone has the ability to prepare and cast a ritual in 10 minutes instead of 60, they backfire at +30 rather than +40. > Ritual magic channels mana slowly and carefully over a period of > (most commonly) a full hour, eliminating the risk of backfire from > all but the most difficult work. Soory, but the extra time does _not_ necessarily mean that the action is done carefully; that is an assumption you have made. I refer again to p.28: Ritual Magic requires the expenditure of large blocks of time (usually hours) and usually certain conditions must be fulfilled while performing the Ritual. Ritual Magic occasionally requires a large number of special tools and substances and may be restricted to particular times or places. However we SHOULD emphasies that R.o.Purification canNOT backfire -- I believe that comment was in the original write-up. Also we should probably correct (to +40)the Celestial rituals whichsay the ritual backfires at +30, e.g.: Summoning and Binding Creatures of Light / Darkness (Q-2) Conjuring and Controlling Light / Dark Sphere (R-1) > 2. Ritual spell preparation eliminates the risk of both > backfire and multiple effect from spell-casting. I, too, am emphatically against this: > Rationale: As above, plus a) makes ritual spell preparation > more worthwhile, and b) provides a mechanism, albeit a > time-consuming one, for ranking spells without risking backfire, and > thus eliminating all those ranking rolls! As above, a) is NOT correct and b) is an undesirable effect [cf Jim's arguments] Besides, why make Ritual spell prepartion some sort of infallible magic? It's already a freebie that can't backfire (for acceptible reasons) regards Michael. PS - I believe the only rituals with specified backfires are: Binding Will (Q-1) Name Summoning (R-2) Conjuring Air Elemental (R-2) Reading the Night Sky (Q-1) Summoning and Binding Creatures of Light / Darkness (Q-2) Conjuring and Controlling Light / Dark Sphere (R-1) Summoning and Controlling Fire Elemental (R-1) Summoning and Controlling Ice Elemental (R-2) Summoning and Binding Water Elemental (R-1) Summoning Lesser Undead (Q-2) Becoming Undead (R-1) Life Prolonging (R-2) Tarot Reading (Q-2) -- plus sundry Rune & GrSum rituals. How *boring* if only these rituals would backfire. Michael Parkinson Assistant Librarian Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Science Library Phone: (9) 3737 599 x 5858 University of Auckland Fax: (9) 3082 304 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Sep 29 10:55:29 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA03608; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:55:29 +1200 Received: from mail.iconz.co.nz (mail.iconz.co.nz [202.14.100.36]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA03598 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:55:28 +1200 Received: from mandos (e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz [202.14.100.208]) by mail.iconz.co.nz (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA010650907023125 ; Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:52:05 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <004101bdeb32$8c5f7440$1564a8c0@mandos.ICONZ> Subject: Re: Agenda Item re Ritual magic Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:51:35 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos Mitchinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >>This is already the case, and needs no rule amendment to address. Unless >>otherwise stated, rituals do not have backfires. > >Actually, the rules state "If not otherwise stated in the specific >ritual description, a ritual may backfire with similar consequences to a >spell." The GMs appear to have polarised against this, so it should be >changed. I still prefer backfiring by default. There is no definite >single statement on multiple effects, though "rules-lawyering" clearly >derives that rituals may double/triple as per spells, which (I believe) >most GMs do not want. I would like it specifically prohibited. > >I agree with Jim that Ritual Spell Preparation need not protect against >backfires & doubles/triples, and his reasoning for this. Personally I play it as it stands and rituals backfire as per normal. I don't believe that GM's have polorised against it in any way and in fact most of the GM's I talk to regularly do in fact use backfires on rituals. The polorisation you are seeing is simply the noisy minority. Mandos /s -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --