From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 00:12:31 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id AAA30241; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:12:31 +1300 Received: from ingate.uk.neceur.com (ingate.uk.neceur.com [193.116.254.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id AAA30238 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:12:26 +1300 Received: from internal-mail.uk.neceur.com by ingate.uk.neceur.com id Jsz20G3nUWplu; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:00:04 GMT Received: from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com by internal-mail.uk.neceur.com id KZ710G3nUW3Ap; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:00:04 GMT from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) id KZ710G3nUW3Ap for (3.3.2/3.1.31); Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:00:04 GMT Received: from ccMail by ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 000325EA; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:04:29 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:02:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000325EA.C21336@uk.neceur.com> Subject: "Re:DQ Gods meeting this Sunday 7/1/1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part From: Ross.Alexander@uk.neceur.com (Ross Alexander) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 There are four points I would like to have addressed by the meeting. 1) Given that it is now November it is unlikely that the next rule book will be released in early December unless huge numbers scream loudly for it. Personally I'm in favour of letting it "mature" and putting it out in February 2000. This gives everybody time to review the document before being released to the masses. 2) Consistancy. I have endevoured throughout my time as editor to keeping the formatting and language usable consistant. To this end I have two questions regarding spell headers. a) Should to have all ranges and durations of the format x + x / Rank? This would remove durations like Y * Rank (minimum 1) and [D +- y] * x * Rank durations. b) Should resist be shorted to the following phases: "None", "Passive", "Passive and Active" and "Active only"? c) Do you want "Spell of ..." and "Ritual of ..." in the spell names? d) Values in the long descriptions should be of the format [D +- x] (+ y / Rank) except for where x == 0 when it becomes D10 (+ y / Rank). e) The way LaTeX formats values means all values are of the following format (including spacing) "X (+ Y / Rank)" blah except in headers where it is "X blah + Y / Rank". 3) Changes to colleges. a) I need a revised status for Binder (accepted, dumped or new probabationary notice). b) Confirm support or otherwise for Rune revision. c) Any modifications to Fire. d) Any changes to Namer. Martin, please send be a draft copy in ASCII so I do formatting tests on it (this will only be sent back to you for checking). 4) Distribution of PDF file. Many people will not appriciate me sending a 2.5MB PDF file though the mail. Anybody want to host a site so people download it. That's all for now Ross -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 09:48:58 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA30810; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:48:58 +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 JAA30807 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:48:55 +1300 Message-ID: <381F4B57.D019FEE6@peace.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:36:40 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic 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 Precedence: bulk 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 Stephen Martin wrote: > However changing CSs to give 10% (+4/Rank) could still be a reasonable > change. This would pretty much legislate out of existence non-namers learning out-of-college (OOC) counterspells. For just 10% (being unrankable), it really isn't worth it. (Exceptions, of course, are Wiccan and E&E general, as they can remove Damnum Minatums and Sleeps.) A possible way around this is to allow ranking of OOC counterspells to a maximum of rank 6. Then with the new rules, at maximum rank (i.e. after a fair investment of time and EP), an OOC would give 4% more magic resistance, have 18% higher base chance and 6 minutes longer duration than a current rank 0 OOC counter. Why is the non-ranking rule in there in the first place? Are these good reasons, and do they remain compelling if the base magic resistance bonus is dropped? Some possible reasons for the non-ranking rule: * So that (except namers) people can't teach counters of other than their own college. (This could be added as an explicit rule.) * To avoid other colleges intruding on Namer's turf - i.e. so non-namer OOC counters are always pretty weak. Is the Namer ability to rank above 6 and to cast counters in a single pulse sufficient differential? Would using different spell stats for non-namer OOC counters be a desirable way of increasing the differential? (e.g. reduce base chance by 10%). * To limit the number of OOC counters a mage can have, due to the MA limit. Here is a completely different possible solution to the counterspell problem: Replace the option of -20% to resist for triple effect spells to give options: On a double: may halve the target's chance to resist On a triple: may cut to a third the target's chance to resist. (If we are generous, you can chose to halve the resist and take another 'double effect' bonus as well.) This works has large effect on people with very high MR, but little effect at low level, where MRs are around 20%. I feel this is desirable. Note that I am not saying 'the rules should change to be like this!' They are ideas, which I may be convinced in favour or against, and they may well be improved by other people. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 10:02:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA30861; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:02:04 +1300 Received: from westpac.co.nz (firewall1.westpac.co.nz [210.55.236.18]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA30858 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:02:02 +1300 Received: by firewall1.westpac.co.nz id <32260>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:50:36 +1300 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WESTPACTRUST Message-Id: <99Nov3.095036nzdt.32260@firewall1.westpac.co.nz> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:48:11 +1300 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: "Mark Simpson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 said: > That said, I must say I've never really noticed that counterspells being >that much of a problem, however tough they are. Players may not fail very >often when they have them on, but they seem not to be able to cover all of >the bases, either. It may be that there is no real problem to be solved. I think that to your average guild party counterspells are not a problem for two reasons: 1. The element of surprise - the bad guy(s) do not know that the party is coming, or even if they do they don't know exactly when the party is coming and hence don't have counterspells up; 2. Variety of colleges - Even if the bad guys know the party is coming and when, guild parties very often contain a good variety of colleges thus making counterspells far less effective against them. It is your NPC (often super villain mage) who suffers most from the fact that they are up against a guild party containing either a namer or a same colleged mage with a ranked counterspell. Now GM's are not stupid, they know parties have counterspells available and equip such mages with minions of other colleges and other skills/abilities etc. But the point is that I think they shouldnt have to do this - at least not to that degree. The basic point is - should it be so easy to shut down the spells of what would otherwise be a very powerful mage? If the rogue necromancer NPC the party is up against has supposedly spent twenty years and cart loads of EP ranking his spells should the system make it so easy for the party to discount those spells? Similarly should the system make those few spells with an effect even if resisted (ie "resist for half"), already hugely powerful, exponentially better still in these situations? Another possible solution I'd like to float is that counterspells make their own seperate resistence check. Many elements of DQ suffer from the "too many modifiers to the same die roll" syndrome - don't get me started on how much I hate the concept of "defence" in DQ combat when contrasted with the "opposed" parry/dodge/defence die roll of other systems. Magic resistence can also be seen to fall into this category - with modifiers coming from not only counterspells but also purification (up to 20%), amulets, college bonus/subtraction(+/- 5%), greaters(up to 21%) to name but a few. My suggestion is that a counterspell cast not to remove a spell already in existence but to aid in resistence could be viewed as a "magical field" around the target entity which attempted to resist incoming magics of the type it was created to prevent. If the counterspell fails to resist then the entity gets gets a second resistence roll based his/her own resistence. It means one extra die roll but that the only modifier to the counterspell resistence roll would be the rank of the counterspell and thereby you know that the will be no such thing as a sure thing. A high ranked spell from our NPC necro will still have a chance to effect a medium character (with 50ish base resistence) with a ranked counterspell on. Perhaps the distinction between special and general counterspells could be dispensed with if this chnsge was adopted to somewhat compensate. /\/\ark It is -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 10:21:41 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA30902; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:21:41 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA30899 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:21:40 +1300 Received: from phaeton (p59-max28.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.99.251]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA03990 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:09:50 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991103100842.007bbb20@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 10:08:42 +1300 Subject: Re: "Re:DQ Gods meeting this Sunday 7/1/1999 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 Precedence: bulk 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 >4) Distribution of PDF file. Many people will not appriciate me sending a 2.5MB > PDF file though the mail. Anybody want to host a site so people download it. If it was to come to that, I'll host it as part of the Library but I believe it was generally agreed that the rulebook was NOT to be published on the web in case there are potential copyright reasons. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 11:49:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA31028; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:49:23 +1300 Received: from letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA31025 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:49:21 +1300 Received: from [130.216.108.110] (clare.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.108.110]) by letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id LAA12995 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:08:53 +1300 (sender clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: clare@staffpop.cs.auckland.ac.nz Message-Id: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:37:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Clare West) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 >Stephen Martin wrote: > >> However changing CSs to give 10% (+4/Rank) could still be a reasonable >> change. > >This would pretty much legislate out of existence non-namers learning >out-of-college (OOC) counterspells. For just 10% (being unrankable), it really >isn't worth it. (Exceptions, of course, are Wiccan and E&E general, >as they can >remove Damnum Minatums and Sleeps.) Yes I agree a good point. >A possible way around this is to allow ranking of OOC counterspells to a >maximum of rank 6. Then with the new rules, at maximum rank (i.e. after a fair >investment of time and EP), an OOC would give 4% more magic resistance, have >18% higher base chance and 6 minutes longer duration than a current rank 0 OOC >counter. if it were to become possible to rank OOC counter spells I think restricting Max rank to 5 would be good. >* So that (except namers) people can't teach counters of other than their own >college. (This could be added as an explicit rule.) But it's so much nicer that it doesn't need to be. >* To avoid other colleges intruding on Namer's turf - i.e. so non-namer OOC >counters are always pretty weak. Is the Namer ability to rank above 6 and to >cast counters in a single pulse sufficient differential? Would >using different >spell stats for non-namer OOC counters be a desirable way of increasing the >differential? (e.g. reduce base chance by 10%). >* To limit the number of OOC counters a mage can have, due to the MA limit. These are the two reasons I always assumed were behind the no ranking rule. Otherwise a mage of another college could eventually have all the counters. While they still wouldn't be as good as a namer, it does seem to tread rather heavily on their Turf. (And I take exception to people treading on Turf.) >Here is a completely different possible solution to the counterspell problem: >Replace the option of -20% to resist for triple effect spells to give options: >On a double: may halve the target's chance to resist >On a triple: may cut to a third the target's chance to resist. (If we are >generous, you can chose to halve the resist and take another 'double effect' >bonus as well.) certainly an interesting idea. clare -- Clare West, Rm 111, Ext 8266 clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 12:19:01 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA31089; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:19:01 +1300 Received: from qedweb.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.140] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id MAA31086 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:18:57 +1300 Received: by qntnz2.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:05:46 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Namers - A different topic Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:05:45 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 Comments below... Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz [SMTP:clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 11:37 AM > > >Stephen Martin wrote: > > > >> However changing CSs to give 10% (+4/Rank) could still be a reasonable > >> change. > > > >This would pretty much legislate out of existence non-namers learning > >out-of-college (OOC) counterspells. For just 10% (being unrankable), it > really > >isn't worth it. (Exceptions, of course, are Wiccan and E&E general, > >as they can > >remove Damnum Minatums and Sleeps.) > > Yes I agree a good point. > [Stephen] Good point, missed that. > >A possible way around this is to allow ranking of OOC counterspells to a > >maximum of rank 6. Then with the new rules, at maximum rank (i.e. after a > fair > >investment of time and EP), an OOC would give 4% more magic resistance, > have > >18% higher base chance and 6 minutes longer duration than a current rank > 0 OOC > >counter. > > if it were to become possible to rank OOC counter spells I think > restricting Max rank to 5 would be good. > [Stephen] The other big change is either rank 5 or 6 is the range. The difference between 25' and 150' or 175' is huge in terms of effectiveness. Being limited to 25' is more of a limitation than the BC or duration. I tend to agree with Jim in that fiddling with the numbers for counterspells is likely to cause more problems than it fixes. > >Here is a completely different possible solution to the counterspell > problem: > >Replace the option of -20% to resist for triple effect spells to give > options: > >On a double: may halve the target's chance to resist > >On a triple: may cut to a third the target's chance to resist. (If we are > >generous, you can chose to halve the resist and take another 'double > effect' > >bonus as well.) > > certainly an interesting idea. > [Stephen] I agree it's worth discussing. It reduces the possible impact of doubles and triples against low level targets (where -20% often means don't bother rolling), but makes it the best option against tough opponents. > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 12:36:53 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA31160; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:36:53 +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 MAA31157 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:36:50 +1300 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.2/8.9.2/8.9.2-ua) with SMTP id MAA03975 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:24:53 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: RE: Namer - Straw Poll Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:22:51 +1300 Message-ID: <000001bf2589$2ed59600$2a7ad882@sci4.libraryserver.lbr.auckland.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 Concerning Andrew &/or Brent's comments > >If a magic has affected an individual, you can get information on the magic > >from the person's aura. > > > I'd restrict it to "is affecting" instead of "has affected". > > Things that should not be possible - finding out anything about a spell > that was resisted (how can magic that never affected an entity be intrinsic > to it ?), finding out about spells no longer in effect, thoughts, opinions, This is not how auras function, according to the morass of vagueness that is the introduction to the Namer college; but I think it *is* a good, playable suggestion (especially since the Name intro is being rewritten, I hope). That is change the talent so as restrict DA to answering only "what is currently so" -- i.e. currently manifest [e.g. magic still in effect], or undeniably able to be manifest [e.g., rank in particular spell]. Temporary things which "were so, but are no longer" should not show up on the revised TALENT of D.A., but should show up on the RITUAL of DIVINATION, if the adept rolls well enough. I feel that these concepts may be good for the game. Possibly -- ?? I'm not at all certain about this -- even remove all temporal aspects from the talent of D.A.: e.g., can't find out "how long since..." , "what is [remaining] duration of ...", Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 ------------------------------------------------- Of all the sciences, astronomy is the one in which you can least experiment. ... Experimentation is a convenient is a tool, but large bodies of science have been developed without it. -- von Neumann (1955) in “The Neumann Compendium” edited by Brody & Vamos (1995) ====================================== -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 13:00:19 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA31282; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:19 +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 NAA31279 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:00:17 +1300 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.2/8.9.2/8.9.2-ua) with SMTP id MAA07822 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:48:21 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: RE: Namers - A different topic Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:46:20 +1300 Message-ID: <000101bf258c$7667b360$2a7ad882@sci4.libraryserver.lbr.auckland.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 Dear Mark and all > Perhaps my point can be best expressed in this way - Many adventures have > a central villain who is often a mage. The party head off to confront him > in his lair/castle/dungeon/whatever. They get the namer to cast > counterspells on them and hey presto the entire party are immune to the > villains spells. As a player of a namer I can tell you that this *rarely* happens unless the villain is holed up in a high mana area [in which case let's play counter-spell hopscotch] or unless the party has the luxury of initiating the attack on their time-scale -- even then, casting counter-special AND counter-general spells on everyone is often not viable, even though some colleges do have general knowledge magic that can also damage or debilitate parties. > The villain then has to rely on his or her other colleged > minions spells - very embaressing for your average meglomaniac. It > shouldn't be so easy to negate someone elses magic, at least not to the > point where there is no point in casting a spell unless it does something > to a target who resists. Don't forget some nasty villains have spells that still cause damage or disadvantage even if you *do* resist. > I am not advocating removing counterspells, merely lessening their effect > on magic resistence. This may mean either lowering the EM as well as > compensating Namers by giving their college a bonus to all magic resistence > and perhaps some new spells, talents or rituals. > > Another random thought which may be relevant to any revision of Namers. The GM can easily create situations where the party will not be protected by counter-spells: Don't allow the party to have significant mana-storage; don't allow them to manoeuvre the situation so that they only have to cast one batch of counters; use a college that requires counter generals & counter specials; force them into a situation where everyone who wants a counter must have it personally put on them (which takes more fatigue than only 1 or 2 safe-areas); etc. Nonetheless you have a valid point, any sane (or insane but cunning) villain *should* have access, e.g. thru items or minions, to more than one college. One of the commonest reasons why a character is not protected by a counterspell is not merely that its a temporary spell, but that the character didn't know which counterspell to choose -- either because they had no idea beforehand of the opponents magic, or because they didn't know which of the possible colleges they needed protection from. Finally (as Psion will recall), just because a partymember is *demanding* that the mage casts a particular counter-spell, it does NOT follow that the mage actually casts the counterspell -- even if it later turned out to be critical to the party's survival: instead the mage usually complains about wasting Fatigue, or that they haven't bothered to rank the counterspell, etc... Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 ------------------------------------------------- Of all the sciences, astronomy is the one in which you can least experiment. ... Experimentation is a convenient is a tool, but large bodies of science have been developed without it. -- von Neumann (1955) in “The Neumann Compendium” edited by Brody & Vamos (1995) ====================================== -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 14:09:33 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA31636; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:09:33 +1300 Received: from akl-notes.aj.co.nz (ns.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA31633 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:09:27 +1300 Subject: Ross's Questions - Some Answers X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0 (Intl) 30 March 1999 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:52:26 +1300 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on akl-notes.aj.co.nz/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.1b (Intl)|30 September 1999) at 03/11/99 13:53:03, Serialize complete at 03/11/99 13:53:03 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0004C49ECC25681E_=" From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0004C49ECC25681E_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Ross, 2) Consistancy. I have endevoured throughout my time as editor to keeping the formatting and language usable consistant. To this end I have two questions regarding spell headers. a) Should to have all ranges and durations of the format x + x / Rank? This would remove durations like Y * Rank (minimum 1) and [D +- y] * x * Rank durations. ***There are several valid formulas, x + x / Rank is only the most common of them. If a formula means the same thing is should be changed to the standard format (see e) but many are deliberately different. b) Should resist be shorted to the following phases: "None", "Passive", "Passive and Active" and "Active only"? ***Yes, or special. Were 'special' further explanation should be included in the spell effects. c) Do you want "Spell of ..." and "Ritual of ..." in the spell names? ***No. It has been a consistent policy for many years to remove these (as colleges have been modified) so that spells can be sorted alphabetically and for ease of reference. d) Values in the long descriptions should be of the format [D +- x] (+ y / Rank) except for where x == 0 when it becomes D10 (+ y / Rank). *** Sure, so long as it is consistent. e) The way LaTeX formats values means all values are of the following format (including spacing) "X (+ Y / Rank)" blah except in headers where it is "X blah + Y / Rank". *** "X (+ Y / Rank)" This is the standard format and everything possible should use it. If headers won't behave then another standard is ok (but I'm surprised that there are headers with fomulas in). 3) Changes to colleges. a) I need a revised status for Binder (accepted, dumped or new probabationary notice). ***This was voted on in the April 1999 Gods Meeting and is to remain in probation, c) Any modifications to Fire. ***Keith should be sending you the version that was voted in at the September Gods meeting The rest will get discussed on Sunday. Also did you manage to get added to the DQ list ok? Regards Rosemary --=_alternative 0004C49ECC25681E_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Ross,

2) Consistancy.  I have endevoured throughout my time as editor to keeping
the formatting and language usable consistant.  To this end I have two
questions regarding spell headers.
   a) Should to have all ranges and durations of the format x + x / Rank?  This
     would remove durations like Y * Rank (minimum 1) and [D +- y] * x * Rank
     durations.
***There are several valid formulas, x + x / Rank is only the most common of them. If a formula means the same thing is should be changed to the standard format (see e) but many are deliberately different.

   b) Should resist be shorted to the following phases: "None", "Passive",
     "Passive and Active" and "Active only"?
***Yes, or special. Were 'special' further explanation should be included in the spell effects.
   c) Do you want "Spell of ..." and "Ritual of ..." in the spell names?
***No.  It has been a consistent policy for many years to remove these (as colleges have been modified) so that spells can be sorted alphabetically and for ease of reference.  
   d) Values in the long descriptions should be of the format [D +- x] (+ y /
Rank)
     except for where x == 0 when it becomes D10 (+ y / Rank).
*** Sure, so long as it is consistent.
   e) The way LaTeX formats values means all values are of the following format
     (including spacing) "X (+ Y / Rank)" blah except in headers where it is
     "X blah + Y / Rank".
*** "X (+ Y / Rank)" This is the standard format and everything possible should use it. If headers won't behave then another standard is ok (but I'm surprised that there are headers with fomulas in).
3) Changes to colleges.
   a) I need a revised status for Binder (accepted, dumped or new probabationary
     notice).
***This was voted on in the April 1999 Gods Meeting and is to remain in probation,

   c) Any modifications to Fire.
***Keith should be sending you the version that was voted in at the September Gods meeting

The rest will get discussed on Sunday.  Also did you manage to get added to the DQ list ok?

Regards Rosemary --=_alternative 0004C49ECC25681E_=-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 3 16:58:40 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA31899; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:58:40 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA31895 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:58:36 +1300 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz - 10.8.1.28 by fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1774.114.11); Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:46:25 +1300 Received: by FALAKLEX00 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:50:46 +1300 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A725FB445@FALAKLEX00> Subject: RE: Namers - A different topic Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:50:42 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF25AE.9BF42CA0" 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 Precedence: bulk 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 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF25AE.9BF42CA0 Content-Type: text/plain These suggested changes of counterspells do get to affect one style of adventure to some degree - where a High party has researched/confronted a hero before, and is now powered up to take them out. The image of a High party wading through torrents of magic, knee deep in blood, with arrows and spells bouncing off harmlessly may become a thing of the past. Whether this is a good thing is a separate issue. Counterspells also enable GMs to use resist or die (or resist or buckets of damage) spells as warnings. e.g. on a current medium adventure, we've been hit with lots of high-rank water & air magic at sea. The only time we died was when we left our namer behind and got a waterspout through our boat. If we'd remembered our namer, it would have just scared us silly. Again, whether this is a good thing is a separate issue. Another feature of high counterspells/MR is that to kill PCs or tough NPCs you need to engage them in sword-play - more heroic !! Is Good. Andrew > -----Original Message----- > > > That said, I must say I've never really noticed that counterspells > being > >that much of a problem, however tough they are. Players may not fail very > >often when they have them on, but they seem not to be able to cover all > of > >the bases, either. It may be that there is no real problem to be solved. > > I think that to your average guild party counterspells are not a problem > for two reasons: > > 1. The element of surprise - the bad guy(s) do not know that the party is > coming, > 2. Variety of colleges - Even if the bad guys know the party is coming > and > when, guild parties very often contain a good variety of colleges thus > making > counterspells far less effective against them. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF25AE.9BF42CA0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Namers - A different topic

These suggested = changes of counterspells do get to affect one style of adventure to = some degree - where a High party has researched/confronted a hero = before, and is now powered up to take them out. The image of a High = party wading through torrents of magic, knee deep in blood, with arrows = and spells bouncing off harmlessly may become a thing of the = past.

Whether this is a = good thing is a separate issue.

Counterspells also = enable GMs to use resist or die (or resist or buckets of damage) spells = as warnings. e.g. on a current medium adventure, we've been hit with = lots of high-rank water & air magic at sea. The only time we died = was when we left our namer behind and got a waterspout through our = boat. If we'd remembered our namer, it would have just scared us = silly.

Again, whether this = is a good thing is a separate issue.

Another feature of = high counterspells/MR is that to kill PCs or tough NPCs you need to = engage them in sword-play - more heroic !! Is Good.


Andrew

    -----Original Message-----

    >    That said, I = must say I've never really noticed that counterspells being
    >that much of a problem, however = tough they are. Players may not fail very
    >often when they have them on, but = they seem not to be able to cover all of
    >the bases, either. It may be that = there is no real problem to be solved.

    I think that to your average guild = party counterspells are not a problem
    for two reasons:

    1. The element of surprise -  the = bad guy(s) do not know that the party is
    coming,
    2. Variety of colleges  - Even = if the bad guys know the party is coming and
    when, guild = parties very often contain a good variety of colleges thus = making
    counterspells  far less effective against them.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF25AE.9BF42CA0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --