From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 08:08:54 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA13453; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:08:54 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA13442 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:08:53 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p21-max39.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.79.137.21]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19807 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:04:24 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981006080057.007ecb90@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 08:00:57 +1300 Subject: Minutes (non-EJ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq-announce@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-announce@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. I had a request for a copy of the last meeting minutes without the EJ stuff in them. Does anyone else wish such a version? Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 09:26:26 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA13544; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:26:26 +1300 Received: from smtp.worley.co.nz (smtp.worley.co.nz [202.36.210.250]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA13534 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:26:24 +1300 Received: by smtp.worley.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) id 4C256694.00755450 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:21:32 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WORLEY CONSULTANTS Message-ID: <4C256694.0073DCF9.00@smtp.worley.co.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:22:13 +1200 Subject: Re: Working Proposals: Overstrengthing [ long ] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: amtennant@worley.co.nz 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, however brings up the point, no pun intended, of the lance, it >> being a one-handed, A class melee weapon.... >> >> Now the ugly spectre of trying to apply reality to an unrealistic combat >> system rears it's head once more. >I believe that lance is a pole weapon, and that it's behaviour is a little >different to other weapons...In general, I find it hard to understand how >an A class weapon would seriously increase with greater and greater >applications of PS...You don't really have the leverage to put much muscle >power into the blow...I'd have said that the easiest thing to do is to say >that lance is exempt from that rule... >Or, are you saying you want a rule that defines the world in 25 words or >less... Well, I'd like lots and lots of rules, but that's me. :) But I take your point. One rule is going to be doing well to cover all the "real world"situations, if indeed we want to try. The thing is that again we come up against the problems with a non setailed combat system. For A class, it all comes down to penetration power and resistance values. If Zog ( weed with Rapier ) stabs Bog ( Leather armour ) then he'll do X damage. If Bork ( buff dude, Rapier ) stabs Bog ( Leather armour ) then chances are he'll do more damage to Bog because he's got better penetration power. ( this is assuming a fatigue hit which is trying to go through armour ) If Bog were unarmoured, then you're just considering penetration vs internal bits but by then it's probably immaterial anyway so Bog is either dead or very dead depending on whether Zog or Bork hit him. Bart had a good point to make in saying that a stronger person will hit more with their weapon which is true. They will do a bit more damage because of sheer strength, but they will hit better and more often too. This is because they will be moving the same weapon faster and with more force making it harder to dodge or parry. Size and reach matter too. I get scared if I think about the "reality" of a Giant, if it were just a scaled up human, swinging a Giant sized sword. Imagine how fast the end of his sword will be moving..... His arms are 8' long, his sword is 10' long, he's swinging it at proportionally the same speed as you'd swing your puny 3' sword..... you get the picture. Now try and get out of the way of that. Phew.... Who started this? :) L8R, Adam. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 11:54:25 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA13749; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:54:25 +1300 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 LAA13738 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:54:24 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p54-max28.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.240.181] (may be forged)) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11415 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:49:52 +1300 Message-Id: <199810052249.LAA11415@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Working Proposals: Overstrengthing [ long ] Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:45:14 +1300 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: amtennant@worley.co.nz > > The thing is that again we come up against the problems with a non setailed > combat system. > > For A class, it all comes down to penetration power and resistance values. > > If Zog ( weed with Rapier ) stabs Bog ( Leather armour ) then he'll do X > damage. > If Bork ( buff dude, Rapier ) stabs Bog ( Leather armour ) then chances are > he'll do more damage to Bog because he's got better penetration power. > ( this is assuming a fatigue hit which is trying to go through armour ) No, I don't think so...You don't get that much more penetrating power from having greater strength...The other party gets to move too, so a lot of the advantage of having great strength is mitigated greatly...I don't beleive one-handed A class weapons are really capable of transferring large amounts of kinetic energy into a victim...thrusting weapons are too slow...Yes, I suppose there is some slight advantage in having greater strength behind a thrust, perhaps you do get to penetrate armour more easily...But, the increase wouldn't be by much, and you have to ask yourself if a rule change would be useful...I mean, what is the point in trying to cover everything...Just have a good general rule. > If Bog were unarmoured, then you're just considering penetration vs > internal > bits but by then it's probably immaterial anyway so Bog is either dead or > very dead depending on whether Zog or Bork hit him. It's probably not very important to know how dead someone is...It's usually considered a very binary condition. > Bart had a good point to make in saying that a stronger person will hit > more > with their weapon which is true. They will do a bit more damage because of > sheer strength, but they will hit better and more often too. This is > because > they will be moving the same weapon faster and with more force making it > harder > to dodge or parry. > > Size and reach matter too. > > I get scared if I think about the "reality" of a Giant, if it were just a > scaled > up human, swinging a Giant sized sword. > Imagine how fast the end of his sword will be moving..... > His arms are 8' long, his sword is 10' long, he's swinging it at > proportionally > the same speed as you'd swing your puny 3' sword..... you get the picture. > Now try and get out of the way of that. Don't worry, Adam, you're completely safe...DQ giants are some of the biggest wusses around...They are so different from my expectationsof large humanoids with weapons and armour, that I'm afraid I wouldn't countenance them as they stand...And I've already made the point that giants should use other rules to reflect their combat, but, O, no...That would be change, and it appears that no-one wants that... Jim. Contemptuous. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 12:21:33 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA13802; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:21:33 +1300 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 MAA13792 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:21:32 +1300 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 MAA14516 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:17:01 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199810052317.MAA14516@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:19:53 +0000 Subject: Re: Working Proposals: Weapon breakage 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. > Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 12:16:08 +1300 > From: Martin Dickson > BTW, if as suggested the MD roll "save" is removed then each pulse that > you attack with your magic sword (or silvered/true-silved, etc) there is a > 1% chance that it will break. [yada, yada, yada] > So... the life expectancy of a magic sword is a little under 6 minutes. I.e. at least 50% will be destroyed after 72 or less strikes -- Yes. Currently all cold-iron weapons [and even, according to some, shaped weapons], *without* overstrengthing, WILL have more than 50% loss after about 98 strikes for a fighter with effective MD of 10, 119 strikes for a fighter with effective MD of 14, 150 strikes for a fighter with effective MD of 18, 203 strikes for a fighter with effective MD of 22, 315 strikes for a fighter with effective MD of 26, Were we work any other factors such as Greater into the *effective* MD (e.g. Rk 12 gtr is like 4 bonus MD pts). So under the current breakage rules, some GMs rule that magic swords last forever; others say that it lasts 10-20 minutes of combat and even less, of course, if the opponent has multiple strikes -- multi-hex strikes, quickness, dagger versus torpid opponent, etc Actually, this is far too long -- consider instead mages with BRONZE (or similar) weapons. *Without* overstrengthing, they'll acheive 50% loss after about 12 strikes, with effective MD of 10, 16 strikes, with effective MD of 14, 19 strikes, with effective MD of 18, 25 strikes, with effective MD of 22, 40 strikes, with effective MD of 26, Hey at those reates, I'm sure breaking a magic weapon is preferabe to a bronze one. feel free to solve the following equation for your own stats: survival = (1 - [breakage] * (1-3*[effective MD]/100) )^[strikes] > I would rather see basic iron/steel weapons break than shaped ones. I > agree that alloys involving silver, etc should have greater break chance, > bronze more again... and think that bone,stone and wooden weapons should > have a greater chance again. Fair enough. Perhaps Breakage chance should be -x% Magic weapon which does +x bonus damage 0% cold iron 1% "silvered" 2% bronze ... etc I.e. Magic swords or cold-never break, if you don't overstrength them. You *can* even overstrength a magic sword that [X] bonus damage for a further X points (if you have the PS) without any risk of breakage. Martin later points out: > Date sent: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 15:02:51 +1300 > From: Martin Dickson [. . .] > Some of the suggestions from Michael, Andrew, Rosemary, etc are > good, I just think we need to be careful before putting any of these > weapon break ideas into play. 1-3% doesn't sound like a lot, but > cumulative chances have a nasty way of sneaking up on one, Quite so. The survival percentages fall below 50% for 1% breakage after 69 strikes, 2% breakage after 35 strikes, 3% breakage after 23 strikes, 4% breakage after 17 strikes, 5% breakage after 14 strikes, 6% breakage after 12 strikes, 7% breakage after 10 strikes, 8% breakage after 9 strikes, regards, Michael. 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 Oct 6 12:25:05 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA13835; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:25:05 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id MAA13824 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:25:03 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id MAA11229; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:20:31 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <3619543E.704134DF@peace.co.nz> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 12:20:30 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Working Proposals: Overstrengthing [ long ] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com 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. Jim Arona wrote: > No, I don't think so...You don't get that much more penetrating power from > having greater strength...The other party gets to move too, so a lot of the > advantage of having great strength is mitigated greatly...I don't beleive > one-handed A class weapons are really capable of transferring large amounts > of kinetic energy into a victim...thrusting weapons are too slow...Yes, I > suppose there is some slight advantage in having greater strength behind a > thrust, perhaps you do get to penetrate armour more easily...But, the > increase wouldn't be by much, and you have to ask yourself if a rule change > would be useful...I mean, what is the point in trying to cover > everything...Just have a good general rule. From a imperfectly remembered conversation with a friend of mine, who was North Island fencing champion: A lunge with a rapier is very fast - it is almost impossible to react fast enough to deflect it, the defense is to backstep. Does this affect your statement 'thrusting weapons are too slow'? He said that his technique did not have much subtilty, he achieved his results largely through strength and reach - demonstrating, I suppose, the advantage of strength for to-hit chances. The issue of whether strength increases damage, of course, is not answered by fencing, as things are designed so they don't damage each other. It seems to me that for very thin swords, there is a limit to the strenght that can be put behind them before they buckle rather than transmit that force to the point. For fencing swords, this limit is (deliberately) quite low. For a real world rapier, it may well still be a significant limit. For a real world dagger, it is not - if someone buckles their dagger by thrusting it too hard into you, their hand is probably going to appear through the back of your rib cage in a fraction of a second anyhow. Michael W. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 12:42:40 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA13870; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:42:40 +1300 Received: from smtp.worley.co.nz (smtp.worley.co.nz [202.36.210.250]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id MAA13861 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:42:39 +1300 Received: by smtp.worley.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) id 4C256695.000375B9 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:37:47 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WORLEY CONSULTANTS Message-ID: <4C256695.0001D6E1.00@smtp.worley.co.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:38:25 +1200 Subject: Re: Working Proposals: Overstrengthing [ long ] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: amtennant@worley.co.nz 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. [ armour penetration stuff ] >No, I don't think so...You don't get that much more penetrating power from >having greater strength...The other party gets to move too, so a lot of the >advantage of having great strength is mitigated greatly...I don't beleive >one-handed A class weapons are really capable of transferring large amounts >of kinetic energy into a victim...thrusting weapons are too slow...Yes, I >suppose there is some slight advantage in having greater strength behind a >thrust, perhaps you do get to penetrate armour more easily...But, the >increase wouldn't be by much, and you have to ask yourself if a rule change >would be useful...I mean, what is the point in trying to cover >everything...Just have a good general rule. Yeah, armour is designed to deflect blows usually, which is helped by your target generally not standing still and taking it. Hence the chest ridges evident in post-firearm platemail. But as you say, it's probably not worth putting into this kind of system. >> If Bog were unarmoured, then you're just considering penetration vs >> internal >> bits but by then it's probably immaterial anyway so Bog is either dead or >> very dead depending on whether Zog or Bork hit him. >It's probably not very important to know how dead someone is...It's usually >considered a very binary condition. Stragely enough, in DQ it's not always the case. It is in fact useful to know how dead someone is... :) But yes, with a basic hit points style system like DQ has it's not too important. [ Giants should be brutal killing machines ] >Don't worry, Adam, you're completely safe...DQ giants are some of the >biggest wusses around...They are so different from my expectationsof large >humanoids with weapons and armour, that I'm afraid I wouldn't countenance >them as they stand...And I've already made the point that giants should use >other rules to reflect their combat, but, O, no...That would be change, and >it appears that no-one wants that... It sometimes seems like that. I personally think Giants shouldn't be a PC race. They don't work as PCs. L8R, Adam. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 12:58:35 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA13912; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:58:35 +1300 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 MAA13903 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:58:34 +1300 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 MAA19157 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:54:02 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199810052354.MAA19157@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:56:57 +0000 Subject: PS and Weapons (was... lateral thought) 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. > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:10:02 GMT+1200 > Subject: Re: Weapon Beakage, lateral thought?? > From: "Bart Janssen" > It seem to me there is a basic assumption here that most if not all have > accepted. That is that "overstrengthing" give extra damage because > more "heft" is put into the blow [ . . . ] Thus my blows hit the target more precisely. > > What does that have to do with DQ........sod all. Except that I think the > real effect of excess strength should be not extra damage but extra > strike chance and also extra spec grev and endurance chance. I like the concept. However my aim was to replace some illogical and incomplete rules that worked poorly with more justifiable ones that would be preferred. > If that route is taken then the obvious corrolary is that weapons are > more likely to break in the hands of someone with LESS strength rather > than with MORE strength. true - in the real world. To put one more layer in an earlier objection to the 3xMD-save vs weapon breakage: Wuss the thief is unranked in a weapon he doesn't have the strength to use attacking scorpions lying amongst bolders but his MD is 24; whereas Wulf is highly rank in his weapon and is striking jellyfish sitting in the water but his MD is only 12. Wulf's weapon has more than TWICE the chance of breaking each time it is used than Wuss' weapon does. Or, to use Martin's 50/50 life expectancy method: Wulf's weapon breaks in 9 minutes; Wuss' breaks after more than 21 minutes. Returning to PS and weapons, Jim did suggest in an earlier posting that Base chance should be increased with higher strength. His suggestion was +1 BC for every pt of PS over 15. I think this, or a similar suggestion, has merit. However my assigned topics were Breakage and Overstrength. regards, michael 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 Oct 6 13:56:47 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA13970; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:56:47 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA13961 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:56:46 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id NAA15602; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:52:14 +1300 Message-ID: <36196AC8.9B5FC855@peace.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:56:40 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Overstrengthing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: martin.dickson@peace.com 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. Hi Jim, Jim Arona wrote: > thrusting weapons are too slow... I'm a bit confused by this, can you clarify? It is my understanding that thrusting weapons strike faster than heavy hacking ones -- Toldeo steel aside, a considerable factor in the Conquistador-with-rapier vs. Aztec-with-macuahuitl confrontation. Hacking weapons are slow to swing, thrusting weapons are fast to apply. Curved swords, usually very sharp and light (eg. scimitar and katana) are a special case, but DQ does not differentiate between "hacking" and "slicing" weapons, lumping both into class "B". Or do you mean that the blade itself is moving slower? I imagine that the tip of a rapier is moving less rapidly than the tip of a hand-&-a-half. > you have to ask yourself if a rule change > would be useful...I mean, what is the point in trying to cover > everything...Just have a good general rule. We already have a general rule -- all weapons gain +1 damage per 5 overPS points. The question has to be whether this rule is a good general rule, or whether "A" class weapons need a special case. Only once this is answered should we worry about "special special" cases, such as Lance. > And I've already made the point that giants should use > other rules to reflect their combat, but, O, no...That would be change, and > it appears that no-one wants that... Sarcasm aside, there was little negative response to your ideas about 3-hex giants, and a great deal of positive, even enthusiastic acceptance. For myself, I am keen to see special abilities for these monsters -- I just want them detailed in the Beastiary and not in the general combat rules, in the same way that Dragon-wing windstorms are described under Dragons, and not in the combat section. The resistance was not to change, it was merely to where the rules would appear. Regards, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 6 22:22:05 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA14463; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:22:05 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id WAA14452 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:22:04 +1300 Received: from [206.18.99.7] (p7-max9.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.99.7]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA15428 ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:17:28 +1300 Message-Id: <199810060917.WAA15428@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:24:55 +1200 Subject: RE: mind college From: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Jacqui 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. >Gosh, now even the Mind college has a generic "damage" spell. Spoilt >anyway by Force Shield (at least it is self only), being "just like the >others" is *just* what the mind college really needs... not. I didn't >see a Flying spell, but I'm sure one has been suggested. Er... Disruption is simply Molecular Disruption with the techy terms "molecular" and "cellular" removed. It's hardly new. And I could certainly present a case for Levitation being in the Mind College instead of E&E - it's a very mystic effect. But not flying... Jacqui -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --