From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun May 30 09:09:02 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA18642; Sun, 30 May 1999 09:09:02 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id JAA18639 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 09:09:00 +1200 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 20:50:03 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62) id <01BEAADE.430671B0@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Sun, 30 May 1999 20:51:59 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Needed Urgently: Portal Access Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 20:51:58 +1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62 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 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz All replies to below MAYDAY to be left at the Guild (c/- me), and collected upon the party's safe arrival... Andrew >---------- >From: Kelsie[SMTP:kelsie@takitimu.co.nz] >Reply To: kelsie@takitimu.co.nz >Sent: Friday, 28 May 1999 16:24 >To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Subject: Needed Urgently: Portal Access > >Does anyone have access to portal or similar from the vicinity of >Mittlemarkhauptschadt (but not inside the city as that's blockaded) and >the vicinity of the guild. > >HELP! > >Razor and friends. > > >-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun May 30 21:24:03 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id VAA19362; Sun, 30 May 1999 21:24:03 +1200 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 VAA19359 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 21:23:59 +1200 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id JAA18768; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:05:39 +1200 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <3751A822.27697452@peace.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:05:38 +1200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: DQ - C Class Maximim Ranks 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 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jim Arona wrote: > I think that some sort of review is in order for C class weapons. They > appear to have been in regular use as weapons for as long as people have > been interested in hitting people with something that wasn't their hand. Silly Clothes Association people will probably be able to give more information, but I think that when given a choice of weapons unconstrained except by current technology, people have been prefering non-C class weapons for as long as people have had non-C class options. However much damage you can do by swinging a big weight, you can do more if the weight has a point on it. It seems to me the reasons for chosing C class weapons are generally unrelated to their effectiveness as weapons: they are often very cheap, and readily available or easily jury-rigged. Quarter staffs are probably good on defense, can be carried by non-nobles without risk of summary execution, and have additional uses, etc. Such weapons should be less effective as sticks-with-damage-on-them, because if they were not, they would have been the weapons of choice by knights. Maces and flails I understand were used by knights in battle, who presumably were pretty much unconstrained in their choice (except by technology.) Can anyone comment on the effectiveness and prevelance of these weapons, particularly in comparison to more common weapons such as swords? (E.g. were they equally effective against armoured opponents but easier to use?) Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --