From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 23 08:46:48 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA10110; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:46:48 +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 IAA10100 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:46:47 +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 IAA03642 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:39:30 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199810221939.IAA03642@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:42:42 +0000 Subject: Re: Curse removal comparisons 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. Concerning Jim's reply, > > From: Michael Parkinson > > > > Conclusion: Curse Removal's EP price, for the current effect/chances, is > > imbalanced. Some parameters should be altered. > > I don't mind if it's an expensive ritual. There are a lot of spells with > weird xp multiples, and this is one of them. You're quite right, I feel. I confess I was being wishy-washily inclusive saying Some parameters should be altered. > I don't mind that it is that > high, because I believe it will reduce the number of people who will > learn and rank the ritual...I imagine that a lot of high level > character's will have a few ranks in it, but only a few characters > will attempt to rank it. The ones who have good ranks in the ritual, > like Silverfoam will stand out against the other characters. I like > that. Jim. Agreed. My personal feeling is that the cost should remain high, that there should [effectively] be a Base chance and per rank bonus structure that makes the ritual *generally* viable at lowish rank (say Rank 6) for *mild* curses, but undesirable to try at such level for the sorts of serious curses one is more likely to encounter on medium-well-done adventures or higher. However you do need a BC & ranking which means that there is a perceived advantage to ranking the ritual beyond Rank 10. Personally [in & out of character], adding a mere 2% or 1 % (for Gtr/Death curses) onto a pathetically low-to-non-existant chance will NEVER be a viable option when ranking. 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 Fri Oct 23 14:45:03 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA10496; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:45:03 +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 OAA10484 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:45:00 +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 OAA25310 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:37:32 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199810230137.OAA25310@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:40:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Curse removal comparisons 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. Concerning the chances of sucessfully removing curses: Jim said: > It's true that the numbers never get very high. It's one of the reasons > that making the triangles portable is a good idea. If you can remove a > curse, then you can add as many as 36 points to your base chance with a > triangle and an Enchantment, plus as many as, say, 20 for Rank 10, goes to > 56%, which means you've got a goodish chance of removing the curse...Death > Curses remain dangerous to remove, however... > I don't particularly mind these numbers, myself...I think they're about > right...But, on the other hand, I could be persuaded to raise the points of > Base Chance per Rank part a little...Just so long as it was only a little. Agreed. Indeed, the option of portable triangles renders the removal of Major or Death curses probably viable. As a reminder to all, Minor curses, and the chance of removing them, are mostly irrelvant. Any base chance is O.K. since the ritual may be attempted many times for the same curse. However, for Major curses there is the MA restriction -- in addition things that cast major/Death curses often have highish MA; therefore a Curse remover acting in the patients interest will usually *not* attempt a removal unless there is enough MA difference to permit several attempts. I personally am happy with the 2%/1% rate, with the use of portable [re-usable] triangles. Mind you, the presence of a Greater Enchantment really distorts(?) the chances and use of this ritual. -- [pehaps this is a slight grumble from a player/character whose only greaters in the past 7 adventuring sessions was one brief Rank 7 Gtr] Especially since the failure for this ritual is *not* as per normal rituals [+40], but at >= 2x the success chance. This is an other reason why the chance of Remove curse ritual should be carefully low, but not rediculously low. regards, Michael ========= PS: [apologies for use of my own character] Ti illustrate, here is a table of the proportional success:failure:Backfire rates when removing Death curses of MA {21, 24, 27} for {bare mage; Mage w. TS triangle; Mage w. TStri & Rk11 greater}: MA: bare TS tri TS tri & Gtr 21 15:14:71 30:29:41 42:41:17 24 12:11:77 27:26:47 39:38:23 27 9: 8:83 24:23:53 36:35:29 Rank of ritual = 8 Rank of Purification = 11 MA = 26->28 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 Fri Oct 23 15:17:22 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA10557; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:17:22 +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 PAA10548 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:17:21 +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 PAA29695 ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:09:57 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199810230209.PAA29695@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:13:11 +0000 Subject: Re: Top Out Syndrome? 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. Re Jacui's posting: > >With the removal of 26 AG advantages there is no longer any real > >reason to put an absolute top limit on a stat providing the cost > >increases similar to an ep mulitple. (ie 6th point costs 10 000, 7th > >costs 15 000). There are some characters who would do it. > > I can well believe it, and I agree that I cannot see major problems > developing if it was handled that way. Fair enough. Let's do it. This was a topic which was of interest to the Character Generation subcommittee -- but it was felt to be beyond our purview. Although the "Max= 5 pts over initial" rule is our house rule, it was felt to be fundamental to our campaign -- not necessarily a good rule, but one that ran deeply through our concept of P.C. stats and character profiles. Of course we did discuss a few possibilities. One simple but viable set of rules was something like: 1. Most primary stat ONLY which may be raised to maximum of [initial+5] 2. A character's player may nominate ONE primary stat ONLY which may be raised beyond normal maximum of [initial+5] 3. The cost of increasing that one stat is exhorbitant, say: 6th point costs 10,000; 7th point costs 15,000; etc. 4. No stat may exceed racial maximum. Of course this *may* mean a plague of Mind-mage fighters who are there just for the no-stun talent. But I like the idea of former non-mages settling down and becoming mediocre mages in a college which has eventually caught their fancy because of the way their "personalities" [such as they are] have eventually developed. 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 --